How much freedom online is the right amount? Do you think its possible to regulate the internet? How is it possible? Has social media bans for teens worked anywhere yet?

All this and more, have at it..

'Freedom of speech' is unfortunately a phrase taken up by racists who want to be openly racist. There has never been freedom of speech in any time of history, we've always rules of land since back to cave men times.

Ironically 'freedom of speech' racists often cite discussions that should not be allowed.

Edited Friday at 11:09 PM1 day by DonniePeverley

6 minutes ago, DonniePeverley said:

Freedom of speech' is unfortunately a phrase taken up by racists who want to be openly racist. There has never been freedom of speech in any time of history, we've always rules of land since back to cave men times

Oh Bull<deleted>.

30 minutes ago, harvardgrad said:

How much freedom online is the right amount? Do you think its possible to regulate the internet? How is it possible? Has social media bans for teens worked anywhere yet?

All this and more, have at it..

Free speech on the internet does not grant the right to post whatever you want on someone else's private platform. Free speech means you can create your own platform and editorialize to your heart's content.

From Forum Rules:

3. ASEAN NOW is a privately owned commercial website. We reserve the right to remove or block any user, user created content or files from the ASEAN NOW forums for any reason and at our discretion.

7 minutes ago, JerryM said:

From Forum Rules:

3. ASEAN NOW is a privately owned commercial website. We reserve the right to remove or block any user, user created content or files from the ASEAN NOW forums for any reason and at our discretion.

Im not taking a jab at this place. And by the way, what do you think about the rules? You think it fosters a healthy environment?

4 minutes ago, JerryM said:

From Forum Rules:

3. ASEAN NOW is a privately owned commercial website. We reserve the right to remove or block any user, user created content or files from the ASEAN NOW forums for any reason and at our discretion.

I would think all platforms have similar rules it's just that some have more or less censorship than others and some have a greater political bias than others. X as compared to Bluesky for example. Was it the case that saying covid-19 came from a lab was freedom of speech or not? Obviously at the time it was decided it wasn't across many platforms including this one. Should censorship be used so as to conform to a narrative set by a government?

8 minutes ago, harvardgrad said:

And by the way, what do you think about the rules? You think it fosters a healthy environment?

What I think about the rules is that there is no rule that when someone follows up your post with some leading questions, one has to answer.

38 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

Free speech on the internet does not grant the right to post whatever you want on someone else's private platform. Free speech means you can create your own platform and editorialize to your heart's content.

Private platform....hahaha. There's no private platform. If I can post on it, then it's public. I'm free to post and they are free to remove it.

There are many websites including the NY Times where you submit your comment and it is only posted subject to and after moderator approval.

Free speech does not mean freedom from rules or consequences.

In everyday life, society places limits on behaviour. Physical abuse, threats, intimidation and harassment are not simply accepted because someone claims they are expressing themselves. There are standards of conduct, and crossing those boundaries can have consequences.

The same principle applies online. The abuse may be verbal rather than physical, but that does not mean it is harmless. Persistent insults, harassment, threats and deliberately abusive behaviour can have a very real effect on the person receiving them.

An online community therefore has every right to establish reasonable standards of behaviour. People remain free to disagree, criticise and express unpopular opinions, but they are not automatically entitled to abuse other people while doing so.

Free speech and reasonable standards of conduct are not mutually exclusive.

10 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

In everyday life, society places limits on behaviour.

Society, rather than random people with no qualifications who may be abusers themselves 😊

I mean, look at the behaviour of the POTUS. There are many who consider his behaviour unacceptable.

So who decides? I prefer to self-regulate and to take no notice of the people unable to practice what they preach.

22 minutes ago, JerryM said:

There are many websites including the NY Times where you submit your comment and it is only posted subject to and after moderator approval.

That isn't a forum. The newspapers can run along nicely without comments.

3 minutes ago, Mr Hands said:

That isn't a forum. The newspapers can run along nicely without comments.

This is running live on NY Times right now:

361 comments on Saudis Shut Down Crucial Pipeline After Drone Attack From Iraq

Share your thoughts…

From NYT

Welcome to the comments section. We moderate every submission according to our guidelines

NB You have to be a paid NY Times subscriber to comment.

Edited yesterday at 12:50 AM1 day by JerryM

21 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Free speech does not mean freedom from rules or consequences.

In everyday life, society places limits on behaviour. Physical abuse, threats, intimidation and harassment are not simply accepted because someone claims they are expressing themselves. There are standards of conduct, and crossing those boundaries can have consequences.

The same principle applies online. The abuse may be verbal rather than physical, but that does not mean it is harmless. Persistent insults, harassment, threats and deliberately abusive behaviour can have a very real effect on the person receiving them.

An online community therefore has every right to establish reasonable standards of behaviour. People remain free to disagree, criticise and express unpopular opinions, but they are not automatically entitled to abuse other people while doing so.

Free speech and reasonable standards of conduct are not mutually exclusive.

Agree with all of that. Why is it not like that here? Trolls thrive and there is very few threads like this one. Why is that?

Just now, JerryM said:

This is running live on NY Times right now:

361 comments on Saudis Shut Down Crucial Pipeline After Drone Attack From Iraq

Share your thoughts…

From NYT

Welcome to the comments section. We moderate every submission according to our guidelines

It's a Comments Section, rather than a forum. I don't understand why you felt the need to repeat yourself, making me repeat myself.

Why should anyone care about the policy of the NY Times comment section? Do you think such a policy could work here?

3 minutes ago, harvardgrad said:

Agree with all of that. Why is it not like that here? Trolls thrive and there is very few threads like this one. Why is that?

Who is a Troll? Not everyone posting is who they say they are. Some may consider you a Troll. How might you counter that?

It's just an arbitrary accusation. Meaningless most of the time. Someone doesn't agree with you...now you are a Troll. Someone triggered by your comment. Troll. Ridiculous.

ChatGPT: The First Amendment restricts government, not private businesses. A public square is generally a government-controlled forum where the government cannot suppress protected speech based on viewpoint. A private company’s servers and workplace are its property; it can set rules governing what users may say or do there.

So, the answer is no, there's no such thing as "freedom of speech" except in very limited circumstances when addressing the government.

Even then, the government may give you a beat down if they don't approve of the tone and timbre of your speech 👈

Most online sites are private companies and make the rules on moderation. Most seem to be left with few being right leaning, (at a guess), as I don't bother with any, except AN.

Just a peek and you realize they are just anti right / DJT. X (twitter) is the best example of censorship when twitter to less so now that " X ".

AN is obviously left leaning, IMHO, and I'll just leave it at that. The sites are the gate keepers of info, so just have to decide what is tolerable, and if, any site works for you.

I avoid opinion sites as simply too funny or embarrassing, and tend to lose faith in the existence of human intelligence.

Just now, KhunLA said:

Most online sites are private companies and make the rules on moderation. Most seem to be left with few being right leaning, (at a guess), as I don't bother with any, except AN.

Just a peek and you realize they are just anti right / DJT. X (twitter) is the best example of censorship when twitter to less so now that " X ".

AN is obviously left leaning, IMHO, and I'll just leave it at that. The sites are the gate keepers of info, so just have to decide what is tolerable, and if, any site works for you.

I avoid opinion sites as simply too funny or embarrassing, and tend to lose faith in the existence of human intelligence.

I think that you are waaaaaaay too obsessed with Left and Right. Balanced people are, balanced.

3 minutes ago, Mr Hands said:

Who is a Troll? Not everyone posting is who they say they are. Some may consider you a Troll. How might you counter that?

It's just an arbitrary accusation. Meaningless most of the time. Someone doesn't agree with you...now you are a Troll. Someone triggered by your comment. Troll. Ridiculous.

I am not a regular user here so when I come here for discussion I notice mostly others are not. There is not much critical thought here. Im not sure if thay has more to do with the setting everyone lives in or if its due to the environment of what discussion is allowed and what's not.

The nature of the internet is such that nobody can really be prevented from accessing a platform if they really wanted to access it. This makes it so there is no consequences for anything said here, so in my view you might as well just be laissez Faire and let it all hang out. Its not any worse than the most censored of platforms, which are all doing very poorly as of late. Many of which are obviously using fake accounts to fake engagement when successful platforms are removing the fake accounts because of the damage it causes

2 hours ago, harvardgrad said:

How much freedom online is the right amount? Do you think its possible to regulate the internet? How is it possible? Has social media bans for teens worked anywhere yet?

All this and more, have at it..

Different places have different restrictions, there is nowhere in the world that allows free speech.

1 minute ago, harvardgrad said:

I am not a regular user here so when I come here for discussion I notice mostly others are not. There is not much critical thought here. Im not sure if thay has more to do with the setting everyone lives in or if its due to the environment of what discussion is allowed and what's not.

The nature of the internet is such that nobody can really be prevented from accessing a platform if they really wanted to access it. This makes it so there is no consequences for anything said here, so in my view you might as well just be laissez Faire and let it all hang out. Its not any worse than the most censored of platforms, which are all doing very poorly as of late. Many of which are obviously using fake accounts to fake engagement when successful platforms are removing the fake accounts because of the damage it causes

If people are not free to discuss what they really think, then the whole premise is fake. That's different from someone simply posting to inflame, with no intent to discuss at all.

I don't care about any arbitrary 'rules', as I live my life according to my moral compass. They can be themselves and i will be myself. Anything less than that is akin to being cowed in fear.

1 minute ago, Mr Hands said:

I think that you are waaaaaaay too obsessed with Left and Right. Balanced people are, balanced.

Not obsessed, just a reality, as sites are either. I'm deemed as a slightly right leaning liberal, that a questionaire site pointed out to me, and seems accurate.

Difference is, I'm not hard core right or left, and agree with some ideas of both. Others, most people on sites are one or the other, very close minded.

Like yourself, give opinions of things and people, they know nothing about.

Edited yesterday at 01:11 AM1 day by KhunLA

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Different places have different restrictions, there is nowhere in the world that allows free speech.

Allowed? People fight and die to live free. I don't need anyone's permission.

8 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Most online sites are private companies and make the rules on moderation. Most seem to be left with few being right leaning, (at a guess), as I don't bother with any, except AN.

Google ads makes the rules on what can be posted on this forum.

1 minute ago, Mr Hands said:

Allowed? People fight and die to live free. I don't need anyone's permission.

You are living in a delusional world.

Which is why you have to keep returning to the forum under a new identity every few weeks.

Edited yesterday at 01:15 AM1 day by BritManToo

Just now, KhunLA said:

Not obsessed, just a reality, as sites are either. I'm deemed as a slightly right leaning liberal, that a questionaire site pointed out to me, and seems accurate.

Difference is, I'm not hard core right or left, and agree with some ideas of both. Others, most people on sites are one or the other, very close minded.

Like yourself, give opinions of things and people, you know nothing about.

That's your perception of reality.

If you like being pigeon-holed, go right ahead. You still seem to be in the Left-Right tunnel and unable to describe yourself in any other terms. That, for me, is obsessive.

1 hour ago, JerryM said:

From Forum Rules:

3. ASEAN NOW is a privately owned commercial website. We reserve the right to remove or block any user, user created content or files from the ASEAN NOW forums for any reason and at our discretion.

The guy who looks up every rule in the book and thinks life operates 100% of the time by a strict rule book and every other human being on the planet is perpetually referencing the rule book 24/7 and nothing ever deviates from the rule book.

What a joke.

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You are living in a delusional world.

I would say it is more likely to be the other way around.