Comments by "janburn007" (@janburn007) on "A Major Crisis! Our Data, When Privately Held by Corporations, Loses Protections!" video.

This is a very interesting topic & one which should make most people very way of making their data available to big tech. Some people have been arguing for some time that the reason "big tech" can censor views expressed on their platforms, is because they are "private" organisations & can therefore do anything they like (within the law). And the recent result of Donald Trump's court case obviously confirms this. Even if the content of what has been said on a platform, does not technically "breach the rules" of that platform - they can still find some other reason to cancel you if they want to - but in reality they do not even need a reason to do so. But if the rules of free speech only apply to the government, does this mean that if "free speech" is to exist in an on-line environment, it needs to be provided by a government platform? But does this in turn, mean that, if government itself is to exist in an on-line platform provided by big tech - it too will be subject to "cancellation" by the "private" big tech companies, which could then censor even the government, just as it did the likes of the President of the USA & Gab? The only way for the government not to be subject to such cancellation by big tech, would be the for the government to develop its own platforms which were completely independent of the platforms & on-line services offered by big tech & other private companies. So no-one would have the ability then to "cancel" the government from its own platforms. Having said that, I've noticed that even on existing platforms & pages of government entities on existing big tech social media platforms, the government is actually not allowing "free speech" & is censoring contributions by members of the public. Perhaps this is because these government entities know that they themselves risk "cancellation" by the big tech private companies whose platforms they are using. But this "censorship" by such government entities even includes such things as "cancelling" contributors to their pages, claiming they have been "spamming", simply because they posted responses to the comments of several other people, all in the one day. As far as I know, most of the big tech platforms themselves don't actually cancel/ban people for that sort of thing - so perhaps that was an example of censorship by the government itself, rather than being due to the rules of the big tech platform. So in some cases, maybe the government itself is not even willing to allow "free speech" on its own platform. While there may presently be no way to legally control the actions of the private big tech platforms at the moment - one way to do it in the future, may be for governments to implement some type of licensing system for any private companies offering on-line services such as social media platforms & related services, such as on-line servers & payment services providers. There could be a 2-tiered system - with a lower licensing fee to be paid by those providers offering a fully open service, & a higher licensing fee to be paid by those companies offering only a restricted or censored service. If those providers claiming to offer a fully open service, then started censoring & cancelling their users, the government could then take them to court & prosecute them for breaching the terms of their licensing agreement with the government. Or they could possibly revoke their licence altogether. These licensing agreements with the government could also possibly restrict the amount of personal data the providers are allowed to gather from their users, & what the providers are then allowed to use that data for. Food for thought!
9
With a physical letter in an envelope - you are still relying on another "service" (ie the postal service - often run by the government, but sometimes may be a private service) to deliver the letter to the addressee. In theory, anyone whose hands that letter passes through, could still open the letter & read its contents, without necessarily anyone knowing. And that has happened in the past - especially in times of war, where government did open mail that it considered "suspect".
7
@scotttovey Even if it's illegal, it could still be done without anyone knowing - people would be none the wiser.
3
There's no doubt that some people believe that being tracked at all times is a good thing. It might, for example, help you to be found if you get lost or go missing. But there are also people who do not wish to be tracked at all times.
2
@domari9459 I guess the point I was trying to make was that the mechanism already exists to enforce no censorship, because the likes of Facebook, Twitter etc have declared themselves to be "platforms" rather than "publishers" (where they would have to accept legal liability fo whatever comments appeared on their sites). But no-one is enforcing that lack of censorship. So something else obviously needs to be done. They obviously declared themselves "platforms" in the first place, because they did not want to accept legal liability for things which people might post on their sites, & did not want to be sued for those things. But if they want to censor content as well - they should just accept that legal liability & then they would be able to censor content to their heart's content, & have a legitimate excuse, on the grounds of legal liability. But big tech obviously wants to "have it both ways" - which is not right. As to your solution of having some more powerful competitors - it may be a very long time before that happens.
2
It is "Gab" - a private social media platform which WAS allowing free speech on-line.
2
Privat companies ARE already obliged to comply with government restrictions on who they provide services every day. Private businesses are forced to comply with things like the anti-discrimination legislation which protects certain categories of people from being denied their services. And some private businesses have already been successfully prosecuted for not complying with that legislation. Why should similar rules not be applied to private on-line organisations who might refuse to provide their services to some people?
1
As (hopefully) more people become aware of the dangers of revealing all their personal information/data in on-line areas, & big tech starts to become starved of any useful information - I wonder how much longer it will be before the government & other authorities start to ban things like de-Googled/non-Google phones, & even creators of channels like this one, which are telling people to be careful with disclosing their details.
1
Whatever happened to the recording of the latest video livestream "Live - Is there ever a need for a government disinformation agency? Q & A" I just caught the tail end of it "live" - but was hoping to watch the rest of it from the recording - but now it seems to have "disappeared" altogether!
1
@robbraxmantech Thanks - will check it out there.
1
It's such a shame that video (re the government disinformation agency) was banned by YouTube - without being given any rhyme or reason for it, or being able to appeal it. What nonsense - it certainly goes to prove that YouTube clearly does not believe in "freedom of speech" - & is politically censoring all content. I cannot see or understand why it possibly would have been banned - so thank goodness for the "alternate" channels such as Odysee - which DO understand what freedom of speech is all about. I did not see anything at all objectionable in the video content. I don't really see much need at all for any "disinformation governance board". Even if something of dubious truthfulness may be put out there - it can always be immediately disputed & rebutted by the parties concerned, or investigated to ascertain its truthfulness. And people themselves are more than capable of deciding the truthfulness of something. The government seems to be saying - no need for you members of the public to bother your little heads with doing any "thinking" for yourselves at all - we will "do all the thinking for you!". What condescending rubbish! Even when some of the social media sites started using so-called "fact-checkers" - many of those people they employed as fact-checkers were biased in some way & gave biased opinions about "the facts". I suspect that exactly the same thing would happen with any so-called "disinformation governance board" - it would contain biased people just giving their biased opinions on any matters referred to them. About a week or so ago, I checked out the Amazon web site for the Brax2, with a view to posting a review of the Brax2. Even though I have a log-in there which was established back in 2010 - I was not allowed to post a review, as I had not made a purchase of $50 or more from that site within the last 12 months. But I did check out some of the other reviews there at that time (I think there were only 3 reviews there at that time) - & they were all positive.
1
@Xavier Breath Which begs the question - why is the government allowing them to get away with it?
1
@domari9459 Technically though, as "platforms" - they are not supposed to "censor" comments & posts on those platforms - in return for which, they cannot be legally prosecuted for anything other people may say on their platforms. But then they seem to want to have their cake & eat it too, by claiming to be "platforms" - but then censoring posts in any case. Once they start censoring, that means they are no longer "platforms" as such. Someone really needs to be pursuing them legally for censoring comments, while at the same time claiming to be a "platform" - which they are not, once they start censoring. And if they are no longer a "platform" - that means they can be sued for content in the posts made on their site/page. And since this does not appear to be working from the legal point of view - hence my suggestion for the "licensing" system.
1
@domari9459 I'm not claiming I can pull the big tech & social media providers into line to force them not to censor - nor should I have to. Just pointing out they are already breaching the law by censoring while technically/legally declaring themselves a "platform" - & the government is not pulling them into line as it should, for breaching the law. Big tech is controlling the government (it "cancelled" the US President), instead of the government controlling big tech.
1
@domari9459 I as one person cannot do very much. But government & its elected officials should be acting in the interests of all the people - after all, it is "people" who actually vote them in - not the big corporations. Despite their lobbying, big corporations do not actually "vote" in elections.
1