Old 05-29-2020, 06:02 PM
  #29  
Lunkerdog
Nontypical Buck
 
Lunkerdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 2,213
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
After reading Valorius' posts on this subject, I think he delivered it a bit piecemeal but his point seems to be that Twitter, Facebook, etc. are social platforms used by the public at large and should not be censored by Twitter, Facebook or anybody else. Valorius also pointed out that Twitter and Facebook, etc. do censor posts on their respective platforms and that a lot of the time (not always), the censorship is applied against people posting conservative content. There are different articles about such censorship and even interviews of different censors employed by Twitter and Facebook. From what I can tell, the owners of those 2 companies and a super-majority of employees (including censors) are liberal and obviously opposed to conservative points of view. This opposition is perhaps magnified a bit by the cancel and snowflake cultures that seem to be spreading.

Just out of curiosity, in your perfect world (term you previously mentioned), would people be able to post whatever they want (not criminal stuff) and let the audience judge what content they want to view or consume by simply ignoring the said content or do you favor some type of control or censorship beyond just deleting criminal stuff? Serious question as it helps to form the discussion.
Cal, I saw RogerV make a "perfect world" comment earlier this week, but don't recall making a comment like that myself... As to your question, yes, people should be able to post what they want as long as it adheres to a given sites TOS, and basically let the viewers determine if they want to view the content of any post...

The other highlighted above seems a bit broad to me... Is the content being censored because it's conservative, or how it's being expressed? Again a sites TOS may be in play...

Lunkerdog is offline