Protesting Censorship By Censoring....

[stvdv]

People cannot control themselves?

There are plenty of addicts unable to control their addiction; can you claim you have not 1 addiction? (addiction I define as doing something that is harmful for you/others on body, mind or soul level, but you do not stop it, while being aware of the harm done to you and/or others ... being cynical, and esp. sarcastic falls in this category too)

 

[crossfire]

According to the article it is only blocking Facebook and Twitter from those that request it. In other words "I can't help myself, please block this for me". Pretty pathetic.

Yeah, that's how I read it, as well.

 

[stvdv]

I find the first and last paragraphs especially comical:

View attachment 46867​

They literally claim a moral high ground while doing the very thing they complain is immoral...

I read this differently:

You can censor on many levels. Google, Facebook, Twitter all censor a lot; easily going down the road of China. This network provider claims that they disagree with this AND that they, being the network provider, censor the ones who censor ... meaning they stop the ones censoring. Compare it to a police man shooting a killer to avoid him from killing innocent people. Network provider trumps social media in the hierarchy of the ISO pyramid.

I rather have censorship on network provider level, so that I can decide what I see, by contacting the network provider myself (stvdv fully responsible and in control). I don't like where we go now, that Google, Facebook and other soc.media, who have become so widely used now, censor my news, that is the same as censor Freedom of Speech; like I said before, virtual life (soc.media) Rules kind of substitute real life (Freedom of Speech) Rules. Censor freedom of speech on soc.media = limit Freedom of Speech in real life. Gradually people fail to see the difference, and gradually we might loose our Freedom of Speech. Newspapers disappear fast, people read their news on internet. Newspapers have Freedom of Speech, when newspapers disappear and are replaced with soc.media then soc.media should NOT censor more than the newspapers (IMO).
@stvdvRF

 

[crossfire]

I suppose if one cannot control oneself, but that does seem like putting self-control into the hands of others. Not really building strength of character and that seems pathetic to me.

The parents may not want their children accessing those sites, and are afraid that the children would be tech-savvy enough to get around any controls the parents might put on their home network, so they ask the ISP provider to block those sites. ISP's cannot blanket censor or slow down service according to Washington State laws. The kids can probably access those sites through a proxy on their cell phones, however, since the ISP cannot blanket censor.
This situation would then force parents to talk to their children about these sites and use logic and persuasion to discourage their children from going to those sites instead of the more forceful blocking. (Which is probably the healthier route, imo.)

 

[McBell]

I read this differently:

You can censor on many levels. Google, Facebook, Twitter all censor a lot; easily going down the road of China. This network provider claims that they disagree with this AND that they, being the network provider, censor the ones who censor ... meaning they stop the ones censoring. Compare it to a police man shooting a killer to avoid him from killing innocent people. Network provider trumps social media in the hierarchy of the ISO pyramid.

I rather have censorship on network provider level, so that I can decide what I see, by contacting the network provider myself (stvdv fully responsible and in control). I don't like where we go now, that Google, Facebook and other soc.media, who have become so widely used now, censor my news, that is the same as censor Freedom of Speech; like I said before, virtual life (soc.media) Rules kind of substitute real life (Freedom of Speech) Rules. Censor freedom of speech on soc.media = limit Freedom of Speech in real life. Gradually people fail to see the difference, and gradually we might loose our Freedom of Speech. Newspapers disappear fast, people read their news on internet. Newspapers have Freedom of Speech, when newspapers disappear and are replaced with soc.media then soc.media should NOT censor more than the newspapers (IMO).
@stvdvRF

They are claiming censoring is immoral and they will combat censoring by censoring...
While LITERALLY claiming the higher moral ground...

Just because they back peddled from their initial agenda...
And only then because it is likely illegal for them to go on with the original plan...

Your choosing to decide what you want to see and not see for yourself is not censorship.
You deciding what others get to see and not see is censorship.

AND this has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom Of Speech.

 

[ChristineM]

LoL...once I posted something from the EU...and was not available in the US.
It depends...
I think all this social media mishaps are due to the delicate historical moment we are living,...and are just temporary, I guess.

A lot of US content is not served in Europe because European internet privacy laws forbid the provider selling on your logged details to a third party.

I hadn't heard of it happening the other way round

 

[stvdv]

Your choosing to decide what you want to see and not see for yourself is not censorship.
You deciding what others get to see and not see is censorship.

Exactly my point

AND this has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom Of Speech.

You missed my point

 

[Twilight Hue]

Idaho internet company blocks Facebook, Twitter over 'censorship' | krem.com


How does this not make them look bad?

Fight fire with fire eh? Priceless. *grin*

 

[stvdv]

How does this not make them look bad?

By looking at the bigger picture

While shifting into this relatively new area of social media, it takes time to find the right way

People make decisions, some are useful and others will be withdrawn. It's not about "looking bad" when seen from the bigger picture

 

[Secret Chief]

I guess that we are all getting so crazy here that your government is protecting you from us . . . Sorry

Donald who?

 

[crossfire]

By looking at the bigger picture

While shifting into this relatively new area of social media, it takes time to find the right way

People make decisions, some are useful and others will be withdrawn. It's not about "looking bad" when seen from the bigger picture

Or in this case, it would have been illegal for them to blanket-censor their customers in Washington state without those customers specifically asking the ISP provider to block those sites.

 

[McBell]

By looking at the bigger picture

While shifting into this relatively new area of social media, it takes time to find the right way

People make decisions, some are useful and others will be withdrawn. It's not about "looking bad" when seen from the bigger picture

Oh, they are definitely not worried about looking bad.
Even though it may well be slitting their own throat.

As for the "bigger picture", what "bigger picture" do you suppose their blatantly shooting themselves in the foot reveals?

 

[McBell]

Or in this case, it would have been illegal for them to blanket-censor their custormers in Washington state without those customers specifically asking the ISP provider to block those sites.

Ah...
perhaps that is the "bigger picture"...
Getting themselves in trouble for doing the very thing they condemn others for....

 

[stvdv]

"bigger picture"

Evolution

 

[Stevicus]

Spoiler

SPOKANE, Wash. — A North Idaho internet provider, Your T1 WIFI, confirmed it is blocking Facebook and Twitter from its WIFI service for some customers due to censorship claims.

Your T1 WIFI provides internet services to North Idaho and the Spokane area.

The move comes after Twitter and Facebook banned President Trump from their platforms due to incitement of violence and undermining the transition of power to President elect Joe Biden.


The social media sites banned the President due to violations of their terms of service. Because Twitter and Facebook are private companies, their bans on the President do not violate the First Amendment, which protects speech from being limited by the government.

Your T1 WIFI's actions, however, could violate Washington state's Net Neutrality law.

Your T1 WIFI said it decided to block Twitter and Facebook after the company received several calls from customers about both websites.

"It has come to our attention that Twitter and Facebook are engaged in censorship of our customers and information," an email to customers reads.

The service provider said the change would go into effect on Wednesday, Jan. 13.

In an email posted to Twitter by a customer, Krista Yep, the company says it was fielding calls from customers asking that the service not display the sites on the internet, and that they didn't want their children to be able to access them.

"Our company does not believe a website or social networking site has the authority to censor what you see and post and hide information from you, stop you from seeing what your friends and family are posting," the email reads. "This is why with the amount of concerns, we have made this decision to block these two websites from being accessed from our network."

The company did not specify what complaints customers had made.

Yep said she found the company's email to customers alarming.

"I was pretty shocked that they were just coming out and saying that," Yep said. "If it's not illegal, it's highly unethical."

https://krem.com/embeds/video/293-6617bf0b-7a96-4e5c-a37d-b83facfe535e/iframe?jwsource=cl

I've seen it come up before, especially when I've posted links to local TV/radio stations, and even some local news sites. I'm not sure what it is.

As for the article, I note that it stated the action by this ISP could violate Washington state's Net Neutrality law, although I'll admit I've always been a bit fuzzy on the whole issue net neutrality.

I've never heard of this company before; it seems like a smaller local provider. I don't think Twitter or Facebook will be losing any sleep over this. Cox and Comcast are the major providers in my area, although they're all over the country, so if they cut off Twitter and Facebook, it would likely make a bigger splash.

I don't know how this could turn out. Could every internet service provider turn into their own North Korea (or their own private Idaho)?

 

[Stevicus]

According to the article it is only blocking Facebook and Twitter from those that request it. In other words "I can't help myself, please block this for me". Pretty pathetic.

Personally, I've had absolutely no trouble at all avoiding Facebook and Twitter.

 

[Polymath257]

According to the article it is only blocking Facebook and Twitter from those that request it. In other words "I can't help myself, please block this for me". Pretty pathetic.

it's a strange phenomenon. But we have had people on RF that have asked to be banned because they "can't help themselves".

 

[Windwalker]

Idaho internet company blocks Facebook, Twitter over 'censorship' | krem.com


How does this not make them look bad?

This is stupidity. For one thing, other services providers will happily pick them up because what they did was not illegal, nor the suppression of free speech, nor anything other than booting a bad customer for not following their Terms of Service.

In the case of Parler, they were absolutely free to find another hosting site, and Amazon agreed to help them transition to that. As it turns out, no other company wanted to do business with them. So if Amazon is to be blamed, then all of those who subsequently refused Parler their business, are just as guilty.

In the case of the Idaho folks, that's just a bad business choice. They'll lose an important client to another provider, who will then scoop up all of the customers who leave them for the new provider. That's how you kill your own business.

But gutting your own inventory, is legal, and a choice you can make all you want, regardless if it's a good choice or not for your business. I'm more the sure customers will be happy to leave them for another provider.

 

[sun rise]

I did not know "krem.com" so checked it Idaho company to block Facebook and Twitter for censorship - it's real

Right wing cancel culture is on full display. They attack what they are.

 

[sun rise]

I did not know "krem.com" so checked it Idaho company to block Facebook and Twitter for censorship - it's real

Right wing cancel culture is on full display. They attack what they are.

Reading the rest of the thread, has modified what I posted.

The difference between advocating and organizing violence and sedition and ordinary free speech is lost on the right to whom violence and sedition against government, the media and in fact any who disagree is their form of speech.