Suppression of speech, especially political speech, is a raw power play by the suppressors.

That's a losing game though. I agree with GP, only dumb (aka honest) conduits last.

I firmly believe that Facebook is responsible for shaping the tone of their platform (every social network does this in one way or another). A platform that allows anything may not attract the audience that Facebook desires.

Arguing that Facebook cannot set the tone of their platform is a losing game.

I didn't say it cannot. I said it should not. It should stay as neutral as it can possibly be.

I cannot opt into a deplatformed political person's speech on Twitter because they're absent. So, no, I don't conflate taste and moderation with silencing political speech, in an election year no less, like you do.

People have been flagged and banned for anti-semitic and racist speech as well as "nationalistic flamewar," all of which are linked with politics which get people deplatformed elsewhere.

That is NOT what's happening on Twitter. Rules are not evenly applied based on politics. #acab is just fine but the gentle ribbing of "learn to code" is suspension and ban-worthy.

All depends on which group's butt is being made to hurt.

I'm sure you can find more substantive arguments if you try.

Wanting to suppress discourse isn't a substantive reason. Saying that's the "substantive reason" that people want more content moderation is just a fancy way of calling those people bad people.

Don't like someone's politics, or are they too effective at counter-narrative? Cancel them. Destroy. That's the message. Maybe you are not such a wrecker personally, but the mob you may belong to always is.

Nobody escapes the mob, and they always end up eating their own. Don't step outta line, comrade!

If you believe only hands-off platforms will last, then you have very little reason to be concerned with a particular platform's policy anyway.

Pre-2016 I would have agreed. Today the tech industry DOES NOT in any way have a "laissez faire view on free speech" the Tech Industry in general has a one sided political bias that is very clear, and the goal to suppress any speech not aligned with that political bias for the purposes of influencing elections

I mean really imagine that.

If the tech industry wanted to suppress a particular presidential candidate, not only with that candidate have no account on any social platform, but links to their websites or to news articles that sentiment analysis decides are pro that candidate would be blocked by search engines, and videos of that candidate or pro that candidate would be flagged and removed.

Maybe there isn't a blatant set of acts that is "biased" on tech platforms that you could point to and say "look see, bias!". Perhaps it is just systemic bias and there is structural suppression of certain viewpoints on the aggregate level.

Infact one of the best things the opposition should be doing is promoting other platforms, if high profile political candidates would abandon mainstream platforms and signal boost alternatives (like the new comer Parler) then it would reduce the power of the platforms

No the platforms want the HIGH PROFILE people, then they suppress the supporters of those high profile people, that is how the game is played

That is how the population is influences, they get the High Profile people to speak on the platform, then only allow dissenters to respond that gives the observing public the idea that the majority disagrees triggering a band wagon effect

To put this to the point which way do you think the bias leans?

Only about 1% of tech workers are employed by companies headquartered in Silicon Valley, let alone San Francisco. The absolute vast majority of technology employment is at companies that don't have a direct technology product. Software engineers working at traditional businesses like banks and retailers far overwhelm the employees at FAANG and startup type companies.

You're buying into an echo chamber concept because you don't realize the extent of the universe you're characterizing. You're mistaking the echo chamber for the reality, kind of how people mistake what people say on twitter for what people actually think.

The President of America believes that the tech community suppresses him personally.

I mean, sure, you could say “both are in their own ridiculous echo chambers”, but the walls of both those echo chambers were built by the tech industry.

Wow, "many many?" Like not one, not even many, but many squared by even more many? That's a lot.

And each of them of was filmed and recorded individually making the same statement too. That's shocking.

I don't suppose you could point us to the mountain of video and audio evidence implied by this comment, could you?

* greed: there's buckets of money to be made during election season selling voter info and ads to campaigns

* hubris: they never thought she'd lose, she was a terrible candidate (just like Biden this time!)

The debate comes into place because the Tech companies will still ban people for clear rules violations even though they are on the "correct" side, direct calls for violence as an example

But the even the rules themselves on most of these platforms show a political worldview toward one side.

This is also influenced by the massive shift in the overton window over the last 4 years, so much so that many people on one political side seem to have whiplash.

So I do not doubt you will find people that will disagree with what way the bias leans, however when you have documented and video evidence of the bias in one direction then the debate is much less valid

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac...

@jack says one thing in interviews but does another.

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/undercover-video-twitter...

What types get a pass on speech and what types get deplatformed?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/24/carpe-donktum...