Freedom of speech and protest

[sptrawler]

Big tech. is censoring free speech. It determines what you can and can't hear/see.
Is this their role? Who voted them in to do that?
Break up Big tech. Especially Google - which is the most dangerous company in the world.

I think what Rowan Atkinson said nailed it really, the big tech companies use algorithms to monitor what you search, then just feed your enquiry.
That really sums up why you have some posters, with unlimited supply of the same stuff, the search engine feeds their paranoia and the circle repeats.

 

[Knobby22]

Big tech. is censoring free speech. It determines what you can and can't hear/see.
Is this their role? Who voted them in to do that?
Break up Big tech. Especially Google - which is the most dangerous company in the world.

Breaking up Google was one of the promises Biden made. Let's see if the Republicans let him do it or will they block it in the Senate?

 

[sptrawler]

Breaking up Google was one of the promises Biden made. Let's see if the Republicans let him do it or will they block it in the Senate?

Yes, the problem you have with google is, they are the goto browser for most people, that isn't a problem unless google becomes a problem.
Then google or any other company, that has so much influence on what you read, can manipulate the opinion of the populace by misdirection.

It is a bit like the argument about Australia isn't doing enough to get rid of coal power stations, in reality the problem probably is, they will be shut down earlier than anyone thought.
Yet people argued black and blue, that we are trying to keep them going, just to spite the world.

It is difficult following who the media are trying to rally, it seems the media are trying to place themselves, their blogs, prognosis and opinion, above that of the Government. If the Government say something, much of the media deride it, then when it is proven correct actively support it, it seems as though the media in Aus suffers from the "no what did you say" inferiority complex.

If the media having more credibility than the establishment does eventuate it will be an interesting world, the media will just type in the reality they want the population to believe, actually it is probably at a balance point as we speak IMO.
All just my opinion.

 

[SirRumpole]

If the media having more credibility than the establishment does eventuate it will be an interesting world, the media will just type in the reality they want the population to believe, actually

They already do.

Read/seen any Murdoch media lately ?

 

[rederob]

Big tech. is censoring free speech. It determines what you can and can't hear/see.
Is this their role? Who voted them in to do that?
Break up Big tech. Especially Google - which is the most dangerous company in the world.

Can you please show how this is true.
I interchange search engines - there are over a dozen to choose from - and further refine my parameters when there appears to be little of relevance. So it is the user who is in control of what they want to find.
If something exists in digital form and its content is searchable, it can be found.
Maybe people need to be trained to better use the internet.
From what I read at ASF the issue is not what people are reading but, instead, believing their sources irrespective of credibility.

 

[dutchie]

Can you please show how this is true.
I interchange search engines - there are over a dozen to choose from - and further refine my parameters when there appears to be little of relevance. So it is the user who is in control of what they want to find.
If something exists in digital form and its content is searchable, it can be found.
Maybe people need to be trained to better use the internet.
From what I read at ASF the issue is not what people are reading but, instead, believing their sources irrespective of credibility.

What you say is correct, to a degree.
Searching the internet is definitely a skill you need to develop and people (me included) do indeed go to sources that reinforce their believes, rightly or wrongly.
However there is a certain amount of censorship on big tech's behalf. You might remember the censored news regarding Biden's sons laptop...
The Censored Hunter Biden Laptop Story Is Coming Back to Bite Twitter Big Time

The Censored Hunter Biden Laptop Story Is Coming Back to Bite Twitter Big Time

pjmedia.com

and recently this...
RADIO GAG-GAG YouTube sparks free speech scandal after banning talkRADIO for debating the Covid lockdown

YouTube sparks free speech row after banning talkRADIO for debating lockdown

YOUTUBE sparked a free-speech scandal yesterday by banning talkRADIO from its platform for debating the UK’s Covid lockdown. The video-sharing site – owned by US search giant Google …

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[sptrawler]

They already do.

Read/seen any Murdoch media lately ?

Yes and I dont think it is only limited to Murdoch, it is on both sides. However I think companies like google, have far more reach and influence than the media, these days.

 

[rederob]

What you say is correct, to a degree.
Searching the internet is definitely a skill you need to develop and people (me included) do indeed go to sources that reinforce their believes, rightly or wrongly.
However there is a certain amount of censorship on big tech's behalf. You might remember the censored news regarding Biden's sons laptop...
The Censored Hunter Biden Laptop Story Is Coming Back to Bite Twitter Big Time

The Censored Hunter Biden Laptop Story Is Coming Back to Bite Twitter Big Time

pjmedia.com

and recently this...
RADIO GAG-GAG YouTube sparks free speech scandal after banning talkRADIO for debating the Covid lockdown

YouTube sparks free speech row after banning talkRADIO for debating lockdown

YOUTUBE sparked a free-speech scandal yesterday by banning talkRADIO from its platform for debating the UK’s Covid lockdown. The video-sharing site – owned by US search giant Google …

www.thesun.co.uk

Nobody has unfettered and free access to carriage services. Moreover, carriage services have a right to determine what they carry.
WRT Hunter Biden, it appears reputable media chose to run with what was credible. Those searching for conspiracy theories on Hunter could find them easily enough.
Again, where is your evidence that "free speech" is not possible?

 

[dutchie]

Nobody has unfettered and free access to carriage services. Moreover, carriage services have a right to determine what they carry.
WRT Hunter Biden, it appears reputable media chose to run with what was credible. Those searching for conspiracy theories on Hunter could find them easily enough.
Again, where is your evidence that "free speech" is not possible?

As far as I am concerned my second reference is a good example.
It appears that our concepts of "free speech" differ.

 

[rederob]

As far as I am concerned my second reference is a good example.
It appears that our concepts of "free speech" differ.

I can find everything about Hunter that has been posted and is searchable, so people are free to post whatever they want (lawfully).
You seem to be commenting on what organisations choose to carry, and they are commercial decisions they are at liberty to make.
So again, where is free speech being curtailed?

 

[SirRumpole]

Nobody has unfettered and free access to carriage services. Moreover, carriage services have a right to determine what they carry.

Exactly, they can deny free speech by simply not publishing stories.

eg if politician A gives a speech a media organisation can choose to publish it in full, in part, not at all , put it on the front page or back page depending on how it fits in with their own ideology.

 

[sptrawler]

Exactly, they can deny free speech by simply not publishing stories.

eg if politician A gives a speech a media organisation can choose to publish it in full, in part, not at all , put it on the front page or back page depending on how it fits in with their own ideology.

That definitely happens, back in the 1970's, I was involved in a large strike causing a lot of disruption, a situation arose where volunteers were asked to sort a problem while on strike.
If the problem hadn't been solved certain mines would have flooded, anyway the guys went and fixed the problem no pay etc, when the info was sent to the media to show we were acting responsibly, it didn't get a run.

 

[moXJO]

I can find everything about Hunter that has been posted and is searchable, so people are free to post whatever they want (lawfully).
You seem to be commenting on what organisations choose to carry, and they are commercial decisions they are at liberty to make.
So again, where is free speech being curtailed?

Google search engine is used across many other search engines. They pick, choose and suppress what your search results can be. Given the influence they have over information they have created a problem around elections.

There is an obvious problem.

 

[rederob]

Google search engine is used across many other search engines. They pick, choose and suppress what your search results can be. Given the influence they have over information they have created a problem around elections.

There is an obvious problem.

If you do not like Google, then use DuckDuckGo or any of the other dozen or so search engines.
The point here is that the internet does not of itself prevent you from exercising your right to "speak."
As earlier posters have pointed out you are not prevented from telling someone something (within the constraints of the law), or making a statement somewhere. However, nothing requires that whatever you said must appear on any carriage service.

 

[moXJO]

If you do not like Google, then use DuckDuckGo or any of the other dozen or so search engines.
The point here is that the internet does not of itself prevent you from exercising your right to "speak."
As earlier posters have pointed out you are not prevented from telling someone something (within the constraints of the law), or making a statement somewhere. However, nothing requires that whatever you said must appear on any carriage service.

Yeah fair enough.

 

[wayneL]

If you do not like Google, then use DuckDuckGo or any of the other dozen or so search engines.
The point here is that the internet does not of itself prevent you from exercising your right to "speak."
As earlier posters have pointed out you are not prevented from telling someone something (within the constraints of the law), or making a statement somewhere. However, nothing requires that whatever you said must appear on any carriage service.

It is a grey area though, as said carriage services have the benefits of being a platform rather than a publisher.

As these certain platforms are all pervasive, it can be argued that they are important as vessels of free speech. Yet these platforms regularly "deplatform" certain contributors who they deem to have incorrect politics.

In so doing, it can be argued they're becoming a publisher rather than a platform, ipso facto preventing free speech.

They would have an argument if they were considered as publishers under the law, but they do have to protections other platform, so I do think it is a very fuzzy line and trading on the very raggedy edge of preventing free speech.

 

[rederob]

It is a grey area though, as said carriage services have the benefits of being a platform rather than a publisher.

As these certain platforms are all pervasive, it can be argued that they are important as vessels of free speech. Yet these platforms regularly "deplatform" certain contributors who they deem to have incorrect politics.

In so doing, it can be argued they're becoming a publisher rather than a platform, ipso facto preventing free speech.

They would have an argument if they were considered as publishers under the law, but they do have to protections other platform, so I do think it is a very fuzzy line and trading on the very raggedy edge of preventing free speech.

Can you please explain how free speech is at issue, as nothing suggests that is the case.
All I keep reading from similar posts to this is that you don't like the practices of some carriers wrt to what is "carried" or how easily it can be found.

 

[wayneL]

Can you please explain how free speech is at issue, as nothing suggests that is the case.
All I keep reading from similar posts to this is that you don't like the practices of some carriers wrt to what is "carried" or how easily it can be found.

Refer to my post, as I said, it's a grey area, with issues as I see them already stated.

It's not that hard, Rob.

 

[rederob]

Refer to my post, as I said, it's a grey area, with issues as I see them already stated.

It's not that hard, Rob.

Perhaps you can instead explain how a person is being denied their ability to "speak" as you are claiming their free speech is prevented.
Preventing free speech is black or white, never grey.

 

[wayneL]

Perhaps you can instead explain how a person is being denied their ability to "speak" as you are claiming their free speech is prevented.
Preventing free speech is black or white, never grey.

Let's suppose speaker A and speaker B are at speakers corner in Hyde Park

Speaker B is moved on, or even detained because the opinions expressed are *deemed* offensive ( but not illegal).

Speaker B may still be able to express his opinion in a pub, but not at speakers corner as is his purported right.

Is it your view that speaker B has freedom of speech?