Why was this voted down. Until the past year I've been taking up for google and YouTube saying, "Yes they have a lot of power, but they don't use it to stop speech or stop people from doing things. This, however has changed and I'm fearful of the power that these giants wield.

Yes, Rupert Murdoch has a lot of money and maybe he can create his own platform, but most people or organizations can't. Even if they could, do we really want more echo chambers where people are segregated into the platforms that agree with them?

A quick duck duck go search showed this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Google had this result too https://journals.lww.com/ameri...

Yes, there are many links from more public facing websites saying that you shouldn't use them. I've heard studies quoted that said they didn't have evidence showing it effective, but it seems like this is not settled, so why are we shutting it down before it's settled?

You're right. They're afraid of goodwill damage. The problem is that half of America has been labeled things like deplorables and science deniers and their goodwill is summarily dismissed. Especially when the country is so polarized, shutting down and dismissing one side isn't going to unite the country.

Also, most are not science deniers. One of the problems is that I believe the authorities are claiming something is settled science before it really is. This only serves to cast doubt on what they say. Sometimes they admit they're still trying to figure it out and that it's changing based on new data streaming in, but insist on taking control and making policy decisions that take away freedom.

The USA was founded (partly) on the idea of freedom, that we don't like being told what to do. That will have some limits, but limits based on hunches or best guesses, even when based on science are not worth it for much of America.

You're right. It does state that they shall not be considered a publisher for moderating. I would like to see that changed. I would like a platform where we can talk about subjects, even controversial subjects, even subjects some find offensive. Where we can talk about the evidence.

Right now it seems that there is a mainstream narrative that if questioned you're ridiculed and called names and if you make arguments good enough that people start thinking you may be right, your ideas, and maybe you, are deemed dangerous and your speech is shut down.

You're right, those in power have the legal rights to shut down dissenting opinions, and they do, especially when they make convincing arguments.

The definition of censorship says nothing about the government. It's just legal for other companies to censor. I'm for the government staying out of what companies do, so in general I'm all for that.

My argument is that if companies have legal protection (Section 230) that says that they are not publishers and the content isn't theirs, they're just the platform. They should stick to being a platform and not censor (though I know it's not currently illegal). If they want to censor, which they are doing, then they should be held liable for what they don't censor. Section 230 should be an incentive to extend free speech.

And can we stop with the passive aggressive ad hominem attacks?

I understand you're saying it's not censorship if it's not government directed.

First, I agree, it's not unlawful if it's not government directed, but government isn't the only one who can censor, they're just lawfully prohibited while others aren't lawfully prohibited. My argument is that, if a company says they aren't liable for what is on their platform because, like the telephone companies, they are just a medium, a tool for other people to use to communicate, it should be illegal for them to censor speech.

It says nothing about government

Furthermore, the government is telling facebook which information needs to be taken down https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...

Once you're living under the totalitarian regime it's too late. You're right, the only thing is to say I feel bad for you.

That's why we need to fight for the right for free speech and open debate, even if we think we know what is right. (We might actually know, but the science could be, and has been wrong)

I would agree with this if they didn't have special laws protecting them from liability because they are just a platform and don't control the content. If they're going to control the content, then they're not just a platform like the telephone line and should be held liable for the content on their site.

But when the government is telling all of the providers who to silence, it's hard to go to the next one.

The problem is who gets to decide what is science, especially in this time when we're really still figuring out. I think I understand what Fauci is saying when he says the science is changing. That was his reply now that he's saying the vaccinated should wear masks again. Before, he said you didn't need to, after he said you did, after he said you didn't. I understand that we get new evidence and things change, but when the experts are still figuring it out, there's a lot more room for the experts to be wrong.

I've heard the term settled science too much. At one time, bloodletting was settled science. I'll always err on the side of freedom, and especially freedom of speech. Even so I am really hesitant for the government to regulate big tech, because that's still the government regulating speech. Maybe I'd be down for removing their carved out protections. Maybe we could have some social media that's moderated with the government flagging things to be taken down where they're held accountable for policing it and others where they don't police the content and as such, the people who post are the ones held liable.

I thought the left was supposed to be the champion of liberalism and tolerance.

I believe a point that can be taken from GuB-42 is that laws trump the service agreements. Google has caved to China's laws to censor the people there so, arguably, they would have to Brazil's laws if they would make such a law.

While I tend to be against government intervention, the US government is already inserting themselves into flagging misinformation. I think maybe a law could be drafted that tech companies don't get to decide what is truth. Or, the law could state that unless something was illegal, you could not ban it if you were functioning as a major distributor of information.

The argument is that these tech companies have become the town square and have made it near impossible to create a competitor. I'm concerned that even if conservatives are forced to create their own platforms it will function to make the world that much more polarized. The way to stop polarization is either to be truly fascist and shut down the speech of those who disagree with you, or to welcome and protect speech and try to have civil dialogue.

The article covered both, abortion of pre-born puppies and euthanasia of the puppies after they were born. Also, some of the killing was puppies that did not fully develop, which further muddies the water. Where is the line where it's ok, at a point of development? If so, there may be some in utero that are more developed than some that are born.

The only thing I've seen is that the USAF has tested it at 610 megabits per second. https://www.reuters.com/articl...

In Biblical Christianity, our motivation to do good should not be about fear of punishment or hope of reward. After accepting the gift of the payment of our sin debt, God asks us to love others as He loved us. The motivation is love and gratitude. It's doing for others what's already been done for us, or as much as we can do toward that.

I hope you're right. I'm all for deregulation and hope the market can favor companies who don't throw the little guy under the bus. I hope that companies can keep companies accountable by exposing it.