Corporate control

There must be moderation in order to make sure that threats and hate speech do not run rampant, among other things. A social media site without moderation would be exponentially worse than twitter.

Not that Twitter has good moderation, but...

Yeah
Heck, there's limits Irl on what you can say. It's like saying getting in legal trouble for hate speech Irl is an infringement on free speech.

Yeah, it’s fine to have rights, whether you think we actually naturally have them or not, but when they infringe upon the rights of others they need to be limited.

I agree but I should be able to voice my opinion without being banned

As long as it’s within the terms of service…

😡

Everyone is wise to the FreeSpee!! virtue signal that the right bleats over every action they take & doesn't really believe in.

"There's no such thing as hate speech! It's all protected free speech!

"Speaking against Israel is antisemitic hate speech and must be banned!!"
-Clown World

You are able to
You just might need to rethink your opinion if it's worth banning you over

But still

No, not still

Yes still

Nevermind the fact that the right patrols and purges all free speech that mocks/exposes them too well across all media social sites in order to give the impression their backwards agenda is winning out.

I'm... not sure modern society understands what free speech actually is

YUUUUUP

A website with absolutely no rules would probably be shut down eventually

4chan has the barest minimum of rules, hardly any enforcement I can see, and still going strong.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should

Besides
They do clearly lay out the terms of service. It's not an infringement on your free speech if you break the clearly laid out rules.

The rules are invalid if they violate u.s. law.

They don't violate the U.S. law, and when you use 4chan, you are required to agree to their ToS. When you use 4chan, you are following the U.S. law and also their rules. Their rules happen to restrict certain things and if you have a problem with their rules, use another website.

And

Moderation does not violate U.S.A law

Tell me you are a corporatist without telling me you are a corporatist. Also when the rules are not applied evenly and to everyone that is a violation of us law, many "rules" are violations of us law, and moderation that is doled out either by biased moderators or biased algorithms and systems where you are required to appeal to the people violating us laws on every front, are all things all social media platforms except 4chan are doing. Social media allows the worst kinds of people to proliferate on their platforms, but bans people whose political opinions they don't like, or who criticize them, always takes the side of people abusing the report button, and the user has no fair recourse against it. If corporations can do easily strip you if your right to speak simply because they dub what you say as harmful without following my countries laws about speech, that's a problem. It means they are making up their own laws and circumventing hard won protections for the liberty of all.

I agree but it's not being a corporatist if you ban someone for giving bomb threats. It's a balance, and the way I think about it is that if I would be able to say it in real life, I should be able to say it online.

But that's not how it's being practiced. People are sending death threats and incitement to violence all the time but they want to ban me for a dick pic where by there own rules I'm allowed to have one and for stating facts of reality and because I embarrass people and make them look stupid. All of which is well within my rights and the rules.

If you're saying stuff that's getting you banned you should think before you speak

It's not that what I'm saying or doing is against tos, it's that people are abusing the report button. That's the problem. I shouldn't have to self censor to protect feelings. If I'm within the bounds of us laws around speech, then I shouldn't have to worry about report button abuse. People should only lose their accounts if it can be proven in a court of law that they violated their countries laws.

It's within their free speech right to disagree with you. If you can present a better way for reports to work (that's actually feasible, court of law is NOT) then sure, I guess I can technically agree with you

Yeah there is a better way. Instead of trying to punish and deprive out of some sense of wounded pride and petty vengeance just use the block button. And using the court system is feasible if we setup a court system specifically designed for it. Of course humans will forever be corruptible beings so that will also have its failings but it would make people less apt to use the report button and corporations less willing to ban someone if they had to face that person in court. And yes it could all be handled online via video and voice online protocols.

Getting punched in the face is the equivalent to being banned. If you're a dick in real life you'll get punched in the face. If you're a dick online you'll get banned.

real. i protect this right with the 2nd

That's not how the 2nd works 💀

Uh yeah it is. The s cond amendment exists solely to keep an armed populace to defend from threats foreign and domestic. The wording in modern history books is not the wording originally used. My own text books from the nineties had a different wording for the second than modern day textbooks.