This poll is not asking if the richest and most powerful corporations and people in the history of earth can legally censor anything contrary to their profit and power benefit. Rather, it asks if you support such censorship. In the USA now and for the most part across the entire world, a small collection of the richest and most powerful international corporations and people on earth now literally totally own ALL television stations, ALL newspapers, the Internet and nearly all of social media. For example, the richest person on earth - Jeff Bezos now growing by another billion dollar is wealth every 3rd day due to lockdown orders and ordering his competitors ordered out of business - owns the Washington Post. He allows no opinion that opposed shutting down his brick and mortar competition by governors and mayors unilateral edicts. The NYT's largest stockholder is a Mexican mega billionaire allows on editorials against illegal immigration - which is to his benefit. ALL are owned by a short list of mega billion dollar international corporations and people. I have never seen a claim of censorship that was not in the profit and power motives of the corporation doing the censorship. This forum does censorship, but does not portray itself as a news outlet. The censorship has become so intense that even the president, collective statements of Republicans in Congress, or such as any statement about covid-19 and totalitarian edicts contrary to the profits and power benefits of those same ruling plutocrats is continuous and at levels unprecedented in American history. Do you support such corporate censorship of the press (Television, Newspapers, Internet), regardless of whether they are allowed to? Should the richest people on earth totally control what you may and may not hear, know or say at their sole corporate motivated decision? Most Democrats I read online not only support book burning style censorship and punitive banning, but demand more and also that such corporations proactively using their info networks to destroy people politically, professionally and socially who say anything against corporate interests - with no defense even allowed. While the news with scandals about major corporations was common, you'll never hear one about those who own all the info/news outlet anymore. Elizabeth Warren was silenced and attacked - no defense allowed - for saying Amazon and Google should be broken up. When it was declared Biden has won the Democratic nomination - when he had lost every state but one - that he lost in the general election - there was a total cone of silence about Bernie Sanders that was stunning to me. Worse than bad publicity is no publicity - as the richest on earth did to Bernie. For example, should the Rolling Stone's song "Street Fighting Man" largely banned from broadcast during Democratic LBJ's Vietnam War era again be banned for calling for violence in the streets? I gather posting the lyrics is prohibited on the forum, but the forum does not portray itself as a news outlet so this poll does NOT apply to this forum. Rather, what about corporate "news" outlets - which ALL news outlets are? Should anyone posting that song on YouTube be banned and the song removed as billionaires protecting us from bad words?
Yes. I may not support the groups trying to censor certain things like your example of book burnings but I do support private business right to censor, (impose rules), as it relates to their business. For example should a Church or private school school be allowed to censor which books appear on their book sharing shelves? A newpapers is not obligated to print your editorial, youtube is not obligated to allow any video you wish to upload, my company is not obligated to allow you to post on our intranet. I think a company should be transparent and list rules for user use and I would hope they follow those rules but they have the right to change it at their whim. As a consumer we have the right to choose an alternative business if we do not like the rules. Recently on this forum there was some controversy about a Cardi B and Megan Three Stallion song that was very explicit. I have no personal issues with the song but if you ran a radio station and chose not to play it I would support your right to do so. If your listening audience did not like the fact that you censored the song they can switch stations.
Alright. One vote for Joseph Goebels, Stalin and Mao on censorship? No one should force the news to allow any news or opinion against the interests of the plutocrats who own the news - nor even oppose censorship for political and/or profit purposes.
Forcing private companies to become a platform for whoever sues them for access? You really want that? Will Obama be able to sue Fox News for air time? Can Rachel Maddow force Brietbart to post her editorials? If you want the government to buy out Facebook and Twitter - THEN you can force freedom of speech, but is that what you want? I don't.
Did you really think it is a good idea to mock those that try to answer YOUR question and poll honestly?
I am opposed to censorship by the government. I support any business' right to set their own policies. My pizza forum shouldn't be forced to host discussions on farming. My cruise forum shouldn't be forced to host discussions on sewing. The government is already too big, and we are already way over-regulated. Forcing companies to pay for server space for crap that counters their company's stated policies is way over the top, in terms of what government should be allowed to do.
You going to help pay for the server space that these platform are forced to buy to host what YOU want to post? Or you going to go all socialist and force private companies to pay for your wants?
I don't know if this is a good example...but if you were part of a carpool and you found out that one or more of the persons that you were driving to town in the morning,,,would spend the whole day after you dropped him off.... breaking into houses and stealing money, jewelry, guns and anything else he could carry easily. Would you continue enabling him? Spreading disinformation on the internet or anywhere else should be stopped at all costs... it is literally killing people.
In all of human history, there never was or will be, absolute freedom. Unless one wants to live as an hermit, society has and will always impose limits on rights. Your rights ends when they met others rights. I’m ok with restricting a neutral actor, like the government who represent all of society, from censoring legal speech, but I’ll never agree that someone can force me, the media or other business to host their content. You want a platform for your idea? Build your own.
It is not clear exactly what you have in mind, with your question, though I get the feeling you have a clearer image of it, in your thoughts, which you haven't shared (at least not to this, early point). For example, in your OP, you ask if we think it is appropriate (i.e., do we support the idea) that corporations, & (media) companies owned by very wealthy individuals, can censor material they deem to be counter to their best interests ("contrary to their profit & power benefit"). But in your second reply, to @cristiansoldier , you seem to answer your own question, in the negative, " No one should force the news to allow any news or opinion against the interests of the plutocrats who own the news..." One would get the impression, from those words, that you DO support their editorial rights. Yet why do I feel that is not really your position? Am I misreading, or mis-analyzing? Or are you being misleadingly circumspect in your wordings? What I am simply asking is if you would be so good as to state, as plainly & precisely as possible, the specific phenomenon to which you are opposed, or upon which you are curious about others' opinions?
Interesting....... I should perhaps be rethinking a new and potentially more profitable possible direction to this basic idea that I posted in another poll????? If an admittedly guilt ridden political leader could pass the blame for their less than courageous or intellectually honest actions off on a mega-wealthy controlling sponsor........... then the scope of my proposal should perhaps be expanded??? Should we be able to sue our political leaders IF.... Alain Pilote.....
It appears the people who gave us Citizens United Are now complaining about Citizens United. Corporations have a duty to their owners to promote information that enhances their value and no obligation to promote information that does not. Remember the Fairness Doctrine? Remember those nasty libs complaining about "conservative" domination of public airwaves? Do you remember complaining about that? Do you remember criticizing CU for enabling literally hundreds of billions in "dark money" to enter our politics? Well, I don't remember any of you, and by "you," "YOU" know who "YOU" are, complaining about any of that. I do, however, remember some bragging about "owning the libs" when it was complained about. So, YOU limited YOUR sources of information and YOU bragged about shutting up the "Libs" and now "YOU" complain about the people you enabled doing what you said they were allowed to do. And now, after all of this, YOU are surprised that THEY didn't have YOUR best interest at heart? Geez.
The question is not can corporations censor news, but do you approve of their doing so - and if all news is unified for the purpose of corporate profits and power, how can anyone call it news or the press? At best it is advertising and reality it is plutocratic propaganda. Again, the examples. When front runner Elizabeth Warren - a Democrat I could have considered voting for - said she would break up the two great monopolies - Amazon and Google - this drove at the heart of Big Tech and the richest of the super rich. INSTANTLY, the ONLY coverage of Senator Warren was people raging that she is a radical anti-capitalist for which Democrats would be slaughtered in the election. No defense or opposing opinion was allowed on any TV network, in the newspaper or any Internet search on Google and Bing for at least the first 3 pages - followed by declaring she has totally crashed in the polls. After Biden promised a group of billionaires/plutocrats he would not significantly affect their lives and wealth, ALL of the media, newspapers and Internet announced that Joe Biden was unstoppable and had locked up the nomination - although there had only be a few primaries, he was not in the lead and had lost all but one primary in a red state. Bernie Sanders? He didn't exist anymore. Not one second was allowed to him or his campaign whatsoever. Silence on TV, silence in the newspapers, silenced by Google and Bing. The question is NOT can corporations do that - assuming you to not see their doing so as of any political benefit as an illegal corporate contribution - but do you approve of that practice - and secondly why does anyone call them "the news" or "press" anymore?
Derailment? Please. Just enjoying the laugh at those failing to see the booger at the end of their finger till they've stuck it in their own eye. We warned, you laughed. Now you're whining and we're laughing.
They'll let you laugh all the way to the pole you're tied to for the firing squad or guillotine. The corporate fascist of Germany used both. So happily do you wish to be a Brown shirt. I'm sure they were too, until Hitler decided their usefulness was over and had them slaughtered. Stalin did the same thing to those who put him in power. But since you want instead to talk about the past, how can you support immigration when YOU white people can here bringing diseases killing 90% to 100% of the peoples of the Americas - and then were outright slaughtering the rest? No, wait, lets talk about how the Aztecs treated foreigners.
I had no idea that JakeJ was a part of the Citizens United decision. Got any proof of that? Like it or not many Republican's are actually against Citizens United. Corporations are not people.
In my opinion the Citizens United decision was horrific and not founded in any way in the Constitution or Bill Of Rights. Neither corporations nor unions should be able to politically contribute. Only individuals. Corporations are "creatures of the state." In obtaining personal immunity form liability as an individual, in turn you lose your personhood. Ruling that corporations a people completely contradicted the very definition incorporation. It is fully giving up personhood to protect your personhood. Corporations - no matter how small - can't even show up in court without and attorney because the corporation isn't a person - so the only way a person can speak for the corporation is a lawyer to speak for then non-person government created entity. Political contributions should be limited to only form individuals as personal contributions. Nor can the company, organization, union or any other entity combine the money saying this is what we all want - because how can an employee say no? There should be no exceptions. This would include not indirectly thru advertising or massive free media, press or Internet coverage - since those also are all corporations looking out for corporate interests.
Let me continue if I may. Only individuals should be allowed to make political contributions. This should be limited to no more than $50,000 for a federal candidate or any political PAC and a total of $100,000 for all federal candidates and PACs in an election year. Other than personal time contributions, any non-monetary contributions of monetary value are counted as part of the maximum allowed. This is a capitalistic society, success should be respectable and the job and services providers should have a little louder voice with their money. But being a $100,000 maximum high roller is all the special notice that can be bought if they care too. There would be so many from different perspectives Any meeting by a lobbyist - directly or thru 3rd parties - must be on public record that anyone can look up online. Word for word transcript by a certified court reporter - who also audio records it. Yes, he got it wrong assuming I support the Citizens United ruling.
~ How about campaign contributions become tax deductible with all the funds tossed into a pot and dispersed equally among candidates with equal media air time donated by the networks ... ``´
