Minor things that bother you

[allniter89]

Nearly everyone starting sentences with "so".

[74/171FAN]

You have no freedom of speech on a website. Freedom of speech, like all of the enumerated rights in the constitution, applies to the government only. The person who controls a Web server is a private entity and is allowed to set whatever sort of conditions on the use of that server that they want. Your rights are not being trampled, because the owner of the server has rights too, and since they own the server their rights take precedent over yours. If you don't like it, you can rent your own server for twenty bucks a month and truly say whatever you want.

Legally, you're allowed to go to your city council meeting and say a bunch of racist stuff during an open hearing, because the government cannot restrict your speech. If you try that here you have your post deleted and your account banned. C'est la vie.

You are completely right.  I am most concerned about a website allowing one side of a topic to be discussed publicly and completely silencing the other side.


Thankfully, that is not an issue here since political discussion (unless about roads) and religious discussion is banned.

EDIT:  JoePCool14 explained it better below than I was willing to.

[JoePCool14]

You have no freedom of speech on a website. Freedom of speech, like all of the enumerated rights in the constitution, applies to the government only. The person who controls a Web server is a private entity and is allowed to set whatever sort of conditions on the use of that server that they want. Your rights are not being trampled, because the owner of the server has rights too, and since they own the server their rights take precedent over yours. If you don't like it, you can rent your own server for twenty bucks a month and truly say whatever you want.

Legally, you're allowed to go to your city council meeting and say a bunch of racist stuff during an open hearing, because the government cannot restrict your speech. If you try that here you have your post deleted and your account banned. C'est la vie.

That's fine, but what isn't fine are:

• Websites that promote themselves as allowing open and free speech or "dialogue" but restrict speech (false advertising)
• Websites–that are so massive that they act as the modern-day public square–restricting speech to an excessive degree
• Websites editorializing by placing "fact checks" under posts or videos and curating "trending" tabs, while also still claiming Section 230 protections against content that the website's users post
• Websites colluding with one another to ban or censor users suspiciously at the same time

[hotdogPi]

You have no freedom of speech on a website. Freedom of speech, like all of the enumerated rights in the constitution, applies to the government only. The person who controls a Web server is a private entity and is allowed to set whatever sort of conditions on the use of that server that they want. Your rights are not being trampled, because the owner of the server has rights too, and since they own the server their rights take precedent over yours. If you don't like it, you can rent your own server for twenty bucks a month and truly say whatever you want.

Legally, you're allowed to go to your city council meeting and say a bunch of racist stuff during an open hearing, because the government cannot restrict your speech. If you try that here you have your post deleted and your account banned. C'est la vie.

That's fine, but what isn't fine are:

• Websites that promote themselves as allowing open and free speech or "dialogue" but restrict speech (false advertising)
• Websites–that are so massive that they act as the modern-day public square–restricting speech to an excessive degree
• Websites editorializing by placing "fact checks" under posts or videos and curating "trending" tabs, while also still claiming Section 230 protections against content that the website's users post
• Websites colluding with one another to ban or censor users suspiciously at the same time

1. The websites you are thinking of actually do have free speech. It's just that their userbase is overwhelmingly far-right as it's basically the only type of website they can use without being banned.
2. This is more of a monopoly issue than a freedom of speech issue.
3. Fact checks are not editorializing; the truth is not up for debate. Curating "trending" tabs is useful if e.g. a whole bunch of Russian bots try to get something trending that's completely false, like a QAnon conspiracy theory.
4. Has this happened?

[jeffandnicole]

You have no freedom of speech on a website. Freedom of speech, like all of the enumerated rights in the constitution, applies to the government only. The person who controls a Web server is a private entity and is allowed to set whatever sort of conditions on the use of that server that they want. Your rights are not being trampled, because the owner of the server has rights too, and since they own the server their rights take precedent over yours. If you don't like it, you can rent your own server for twenty bucks a month and truly say whatever you want.

Legally, you're allowed to go to your city council meeting and say a bunch of racist stuff during an open hearing, because the government cannot restrict your speech. If you try that here you have your post deleted and your account banned. C'est la vie.

You are completely right.  I am most concerned about a website allowing one side of a topic to be discussed publicly and completely silencing the other side.

So, you're pretty much against the World Wide Web? (apologies to allniter89 )

If I went to a website that knows, without a doubt, climate change is occurring, and I present my opinions and/or facts that it is not occurring, that website has to welcome me with open arms?  Yeah, I don't think that is gonna happen.

That's fine, but what isn't fine are:

• Websites that promote themselves as allowing open and free speech or "dialogue" but restrict speech (false advertising)

How were you hurt?  Did you respond to an ad, only to find out they didn't have the product in stock and would only sell you another product at an increased cost?  That's false advertising.  Your viewpoint of what a website terms open and free speech isn't false advertising, and unless you pay to sign up for a subscription, then get banned, you weren't financially harmed.  But as already mentioned, the constitution isn't applicable to a website's content or even admittance, so your 1st amendment rights aren't a defense to getting banned. 

If you want to become a member of a Facebook group and that group decides not to omit you, you can't fight that in court.  If *this* website denies admittance to someone, that person can't fight that decision in court either.   In both cases, you can exercise whatever free speech rights you think you have by operating another social media website, create a Facebook Page or create a forum.

• Websites–that are so massive that they act as the modern-day public square–restricting speech to an excessive degree

Define "Excessive".  Your viewpoint on a website isn't going to be considered "excessive".

[74/171FAN]

So, you're pretty much against the World Wide Web? (apologies to allniter89 )

If I went to a website that knows, without a doubt, climate change is occurring, and I present my opinions and/or facts that it is not occurring, that website has to welcome me with open arms?  Yeah, I don't think that is gonna happen.

I apologize for not fully clarifying that I was more or less thinking about general posts on social media (not private groups like on Facebook or discussion forums such as this one) more than anything else.  Obviously someone that openly hates the idea of roads existing will more than likely not be allowed here.

[Scott5114]

You have no freedom of speech on a website. Freedom of speech, like all of the enumerated rights in the constitution, applies to the government only. The person who controls a Web server is a private entity and is allowed to set whatever sort of conditions on the use of that server that they want. Your rights are not being trampled, because the owner of the server has rights too, and since they own the server their rights take precedent over yours. If you don't like it, you can rent your own server for twenty bucks a month and truly say whatever you want.

Legally, you're allowed to go to your city council meeting and say a bunch of racist stuff during an open hearing, because the government cannot restrict your speech. If you try that here you have your post deleted and your account banned. C'est la vie.

That's fine, but what isn't fine are:

• Websites that promote themselves as allowing open and free speech or "dialogue" but restrict speech (false advertising)
• Websites–that are so massive that they act as the modern-day public square–restricting speech to an excessive degree
• Websites editorializing by placing "fact checks" under posts or videos and curating "trending" tabs, while also still claiming Section 230 protections against content that the website's users post
• Websites colluding with one another to ban or censor users suspiciously at the same time

If what anyone has to say is so important, why not put up a Web server to unquestionably get the message out? Choosing not to do so, and to instead rely on a premade social media platform, apparently indicates that the opinion is not worth spending any money to share, or any spending any time to learn how to set up the server. If the person with the opinion isn't willing to do those things to share it, it must not be a very important opinion.

People who love baking don't buy cake mix.

[formulanone]

• Websites–that are so massive that they act as the modern-day public square–restricting speech to an excessive degree

Define "Excessive".  Your viewpoint on a website isn't going to be considered "excessive".

Actually, they are not "public squares", they're just websites with an owner, no matter how popular they might seem. The barrier to entry is very basic and viewing is largely unrestricted, to entice the audience to use a no-charge product.

They're not operated nor regulated by any government (except on a technical basis: using a common basis of transmission).

[jakeroot]

If what anyone has to say is so important, why not put up a Web server to unquestionably get the message out? Choosing not to do so, and to instead rely on a premade social media platform, apparently indicates that the opinion is not worth spending any money to share, or any spending any time to learn how to set up the server. If the person with the opinion isn't willing to do those things to share it, it must not be a very important opinion.

I would say that most websites that aren't large social media platforms and/or platform organizations already are those things, and to suggest that somehow this isn't being done already is ridiculous.

[Scott5114]

If what anyone has to say is so important, why not put up a Web server to unquestionably get the message out? Choosing not to do so, and to instead rely on a premade social media platform, apparently indicates that the opinion is not worth spending any money to share, or any spending any time to learn how to set up the server. If the person with the opinion isn't willing to do those things to share it, it must not be a very important opinion.

I would say that most websites that aren't large social media platforms and/or platform organizations already are those things, and to suggest that somehow this isn't being done already is ridiculous.

Yeah, but the only ones who really complain about Facebook/Twitter "censoring" them are people that depend on Facebook/Twitter to broadcast their opinions. If you can post elsewhere you just do that and Facebook/Twitter has no say over you.

[jakeroot]

If what anyone has to say is so important, why not put up a Web server to unquestionably get the message out? Choosing not to do so, and to instead rely on a premade social media platform, apparently indicates that the opinion is not worth spending any money to share, or any spending any time to learn how to set up the server. If the person with the opinion isn't willing to do those things to share it, it must not be a very important opinion.

I would say that most websites that aren't large social media platforms and/or platform organizations already are those things, and to suggest that somehow this isn't being done already is ridiculous.

Yeah, but the only ones who really complain about Facebook/Twitter "censoring" them are people that depend on Facebook/Twitter to broadcast their opinions. If you can post elsewhere you just do that and Facebook/Twitter has no say over you.

Well yeah, but those people alone don't carry enough baggage to start their own website. They share an opinion; it gets censored; they complain about censorship for a bit; they move on. Anyone who actually screams loud enough about censorship on social media likely already uses another platform that doesn't censor them to the same degree.

[hotdogPi]

They share an opinion; it gets censored

They're not censoring opinions. They're taking down false QAnon conspiracy theories and Russian bots who are intentionally spreading disinformation, and slapping fact checks on the prominent verified accounts when they say something that is objectively false about either COVID-19 or the election. None of this is being done with opinions, and slapping a fact check on a tweet or Facebook post isn't even censorship.

[74/171FAN]

If what anyone has to say is so important, why not put up a Web server to unquestionably get the message out? Choosing not to do so, and to instead rely on a premade social media platform, apparently indicates that the opinion is not worth spending any money to share, or any spending any time to learn how to set up the server. If the person with the opinion isn't willing to do those things to share it, it must not be a very important opinion.

I would say that most websites that aren't large social media platforms and/or platform organizations already are those things, and to suggest that somehow this isn't being done already is ridiculous.

Yeah, but the only ones who really complain about Facebook/Twitter "censoring" them are people that depend on Facebook/Twitter to broadcast their opinions. If you can post elsewhere you just do that and Facebook/Twitter has no say over you.

Well yeah, but those people alone don't carry enough baggage to start their own website. They share an opinion; it gets censored; they complain about censorship for a bit; they move on. Anyone who actually screams loud enough about censorship on social media likely already uses another platform that doesn't censor them to the same degree.

Ultimately, people will move to these other platforms that censor less (such as Parler) because they still want to get their opinions out there.  We will have to wait and see what happens with these other platforms as time moves forward.

[Scott5114]

Parler is 4chan for people who haven't figured out why 4chan users stay anonymous.

[jakeroot]

They share an opinion; it gets censored

They're not censoring opinions. They're taking down false QAnon conspiracy theories and Russian bots who are intentionally spreading disinformation, and slapping fact checks on the prominent verified accounts when they say something that is objectively false about either COVID-19 or the election. None of this is being done with opinions, and slapping a fact check on a tweet or Facebook post isn't even censorship.

There is no censorship anywhere that I'm aware. The most I've seen is facebook blurring a post that has been fact-checked as BS. It's still clearly visible. But those who 'get blurred' complain about censorship nonetheless.

When I said "share an opinion", I meant share an obvious conspiracy theory that maybe ends up getting blurred; their "opinion" is the conspiracy theory itself in this regard. The point at which an opinion becomes a theory is quite subjective (and at what point a conspiracy becomes a conspiracy theory is even harder to tell), so I'm just categorizing crazy uncle Joe's sharing of a conspiracy theory post as him giving an opinion; Facebook blurs that post and thus blurs his opinion.

[hbelkins]

Facebook will still not allow the posting of the name "Ciaramella" without the attempt being flagged as being against community standards.

[hotdogPi]

Facebook will still not allow the posting of the name "Ciaramella" without the attempt being flagged as being against community standards.

Does that include people for whom it is their own name?

[US71]

Facebook will still not allow the posting of the name "Ciaramella" without the attempt being flagged as being against community standards.

Have you tried appealing?

[formulanone]

I thought bitching about other websites and social media was against our rules...?

[J N Winkler]

I thought bitching about other websites and social media was against our rules...?

Are you thinking of this?

Any questions about other websites. If you have a question about another website or forum, post it on their forum or contact them directly.

[STLmapboy]

Facebook will still not allow the posting of the name "Ciaramella" without the attempt being flagged as being against community standards.

Huh, I managed to completely forget about that guy. As did much of America, probably.

[74/171FAN]

I thought bitching about other websites and social media was against our rules...?

Are you thinking of this?

Any questions about other websites. If you have a question about another website or forum, post it on their forum or contact them directly.

I think that this logic could argue that we should never post about issues that happen with Google Maps Updates.  Anytime there is an update there that the community does not like, it almost certainly gets posted on here.

[wanderer2575]

WTF is the deal with videos with a viewable image in only the center 1/3 with complete blur on both sides?

[hotdogPi]

WTF is the deal with videos with a viewable image in only the center 1/3 with complete blur on both sides?

It's called vertical video syndrome. If a video is filmed vertically, but it is displayed horizontally, only the center third will have content.

[formulanone]

WTF is the deal with videos with a viewable image in only the center 1/3 with complete blur on both sides?

It's called vertical video syndrome. If a video is filmed vertically, but it is displayed horizontally, only the center third will have content.

Drives me nuts if I have no idea what I'm supposed to be looking at, especially if it's a wide subject in profile or something with horizontal action.

But I would be lying if I didn't do it once in a while; it conveys horizontal motion from a subject/foreground with a narrow profile better in some situations (and for personal sharing, not for YouTube).