munchie3409 Wrote:Ahh...a mod other there banned me on Saturday night because I quoted a guy and said "You are NOT wrong." The guy was saying how ARF was in it for money and he had something bad to say about the mods. I didn't say F the mods, but I guess I got banned because I quoted his post. BTW, I've been with ARF over 20 years, so they are about making money. Like goatboy didn't know that Amazon was liberal?
Munchie,
Sorry to hear you feel betrayed for speaking your mind, and your experience made me think about all this.
Seems an entitlement to an opinion (free speech) is all well and good as long as it is within the guidelines of the medium. Face to face is fine in a public space, as long as it is not land owned by someone else and that includes the internet. Which highlights the nature of Trump's Twitter ban. Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, Parler, Gab and the rest belong to someone, and we're just all guests - fueling their profits, with only privilege. These sites and forums often exist to make money, or at least morph into platforms to make money. To be fair, the running costs of the site has to be paid for somehow and if by temptation or design they end up profit and loss businesses, then that's just capitalism.
Liveleak is a classic example. Originally touted as a raw alternative to muzzled, sanitised mainstream news services it has morphed recently into an advertising platform, which in turn has encouraged the Mods to clean up the videos and posters behind the more politically incorrect comments. I have to admit, that includes me, I have been banned. The site owners now pander to the advertisers and corporate responsibility, turning it into the very medium it originally claimed to be not. Torn between advertisers and their revenue, and posters unwilling to pay, do you blame them?
What I like about this site is that Stan, as annoying as he is/was, was tolerated for so long. Like a chicken wondering into a wolves den arguing about eating meat. But, the Mods tolerated him, even stuck up for him on occasion, until they ran out of patience. I suspect it was as much his argumentative nature than covert anti-gun stance and again, that's what I like about this site. But, to those who are afraid of firearms we are deviants and this site with its strong pro-2A rhetoric is anathema. Like Lemonaid making that insightful Matrix analogy, if you can't change their minds, then stop them from speaking - shut down their mouth (mediums).
(Edit, Stan just contacted me on a PM wanting to argue my view about his place on the Forum - I have censored him using the Ignore list - which makes me a social media censurer - LOL!).
Interestingly, other world luminaries who have criticised Trump in the past are concerned about Big Tech controlling the conversation as well.
German Chancellor Merkel labels Trump's ban as "problematic".
Alexei Navalny (Russian Putin critic and recent poisoning victim) likens it to state sponsored censorship - he would know.
Hancock (UK Health Minister) likens it to an editorial decision. The medium is deciding what can and cannot be said.
Ironically, Zuckerberg is on record saying the President would be given a lot of leeway on Twitter because his views are important. Not anymore.
Not the first time Big tech has controlled the voice however. For example Bolsanaro's comments about Covid in Brazil. And won't be the last time a platform decides what its guests can and cannot say.
My point is, Trump needs to purchase his own social media server; then he can say what he wants and do exactly what he is complaining about being done to him; censor anyone who doesn't agree with him. Up until now he has been censuring his opponents. If he owned the medium he could censor them as well.
