The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Your intuition offers a critical pathway to popular conceptions of the ways and means "arbitrary" censorship appears to violate freedom of the press (1st Amd., US Constitution only) and yet enforce sanctions against so-called unprotected speech (any origin). Let's begin by defining some relevant terms of authority --those socially acceptable and socially unacceptable-- to censor "speech."
With respect to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (definitions) is the business of "social media platforms" such as Facebook and Twitter publishing or common carrier?
With respect to EU CODE OF CONDUCT ON COUNTERING ILLEGAL HATE SPEECH ONLINE is the business of "social media platforms" such as Facebook and Twitter publishing or common carrier?
With respect to international reportage ProPublica | Protect White Men From Hate Speech But Not Black Children is the business of "social media platforms" such as Facebook and Twitter publishing or common carrier? Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
This ProPublica article and other, recent reportage [1, 2, 3 ] implicating African American agitation and advocacy for civil rights with "fake" AA accounts maintained by Russian "meddlers" does not refer readers to germane, historical examples of US censorship of African American political organizations by associated with "communist" parties. Prominent among them is suppression of NAACP activities in the hysteria caused by HUAC interrogations and legislative acts.
Black Struggle, Red Scare
Instead of deliberating principles of civil liberty, reader's are given the spurious opportunity to judge what is "legitimate" and protected "black" speech. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Peoples' petition called "net neutrality" has been one of the more ill-conceived goals of civil liberties advocates to date. "Net neutrality" is a misnomer of public benefit. It misidentifies agitators' true objective (to exercise gov prerogative to "fix" telecom owner/operator rates), true problem (carrier OR "publisher" monopoly rate prerogatives), true market structure and political constituents (differential carrier AND rate-payer types), thus true value of a natural monopoly (intrinsic utility), telecommunication.
Consideration due this human "right" is conspicuously absent among "net neutrality" arguments for gov mediation of trade, or interstate commerce. Its advocates might have been prepared to challenge so-called business needs of a privately-owned "system" directly with antitrust complaints by demanding "consumer" protection from monopoly pricing power exercised by both carriers AND publishers. But that would defeat common wisdom in the USA, that is, government is for naught. By now, since '96, it's difficult to deny the "level field" without appearing to play a team-favorite. Everyone with a game, a streaming network, a bitch, an ad [!], a geneology, a has executed a scheme to extract "value" from eyeballs. Yet another reason why "net neutrality" appeals to arrest censorship just now are all the more incoherent. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by IdiotSavant - Feb 28
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 28 1 comment
by Oui - Mar 1 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 23 18 comments
by Oui - Feb 22 24 comments
by Oui - Feb 25
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 20 30 comments
by gmoke - Feb 14 2 comments
by Oui - Mar 4
by Oui - Mar 14 comments
by gmoke - Mar 1
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 281 comment
by Oui - Feb 2831 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2318 comments
by Oui - Feb 2224 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2030 comments
by Oui - Feb 2024 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1914 comments
by Oui - Feb 197 comments
by Oui - Feb 181 comment
by Oui - Feb 1794 comments
by Oui - Feb 168 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1523 comments
by gmoke - Feb 142 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1413 comments
by Oui - Feb 145 comments