Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why censorship is practiced on social media.


Hawken

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Social Media Platforms are not a virtual Speaker's Corner.  They don't advertise themselves in that way.

Google+ Circles said what it was right on the tin.  Social groups exist as long as the group and each individual tolerate each other.

If you can't find someone who'll listen to you, move on.  I mean that's how life works?

🤷🏻‍♂️

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Nope, just pointing out reality. You're an anarchistic libertarian living in a Socialist state/city. Talk about double standards. Your pulpit is built on it. Laws are ment to be changed when they're ineffective. It's called evolving. Don't like it? Move to southern states with the rest of the bootstrappers.

I’m not anarchistic and I don’t vote socialist

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

At the end of the day all I want is consistency!

Fine then I'll revise my statement: and you want to be the arbiter of what consistency is.

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Yes, these companeis are private entities, but they also perform the role of the town square and have benefited from legislation that has been around since the 90s, the internet has evolved faster than the laws that were originally written and new legislation is needed to reflect the role that social media plays in modern society. 

Did we not have 'town squares' before there was an internet?  Isn't it kinda odd to have something simultaneously being so public-sounding as 'town square' referring to something that could be shut down at will by for example Zuckerberg?  His private rights sure extend that far, he could simply remove this 'town square' from existence, which makes it very unlike any real 'town square'.

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I can't speak for all conservatives, but if Musk started removing people for no reason other than "I feel like it" or even "I don't like this opinion so I'll get my mods/system to delete these comments". then they would abandon TwiX. Musk would simply be replacing one echo chamber with another. If Musk hypothetically did that, that's all it would accomplish - a different echo chamber. And that's just as bad for public discourse as left wing social media companies doing it.

Doubtful, I see zero evidence of this hypothetical. Right-wing media will simply emphasize property rights over free speech rights, it'll have the same effect on 'conservatives' as its had countless times before, and that'll be the way it's justified.  

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Conservatives did create conservative social media platforms. Parler and Gab spring immediately to mind. After a concerted misinformation and disinformation campaign by the left wing mainstream media, Amazon and Google removed both apps from their stores, refusing to host them on places as simple as the Google Play Store. IIRC, Parler got a lot of bad publicity for all the things people there were saying about January 6, even though independent comparisons suggested that Twitter at the time was just as likely to host the same content

This is just right-wing media mumbo-jumbo.  Here's what Google actually said:

"“We’re aware of continued posting in the Parler app that seeks to incite ongoing violence in the US,” a Google spokesperson said. “We recognize that there can be reasonable debate about content policies and that it can be difficult for apps to immediately remove all violative content, but for us to distribute an app through Google Play, we do require that apps implement robust moderation for egregious content. In light of this ongoing and urgent public safety threat, we are suspending the app’s listings from the Play Store until it addresses these issues.”

You are pretending like 'independent comparisons' (how scientific... :rolleyes: ) can provide definitive answers on something that is clearly a partially subjective evaluation.  I mean even your mention of 'just as likely', do you mean that just as a sheer quantity or a percentage of posts?  How are you weighing and equating how 'the same' the content actually is?  Or are you again pretending like you should be the arbiter of how to weigh incitements to violence for private companies?

 

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I’m not anarchistic and I don’t vote socialist

Just in case you forgot.

 

fark_8FbOj3S-hQ3Ohv7aL1HG_PEMPOI.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Just in case you forgot.

 

fark_8FbOj3S-hQ3Ohv7aL1HG_PEMPOI.jpg

so·cial·ism

noun

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, OverSword said:

Nothing legal should be banned or deleted. If you don't like it ignore.  Simple.

Considering Republicans want to hold social media companies accountable for what their users post, I'd think they'd disagree with that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Just in case you forgot.

 

fark_8FbOj3S-hQ3Ohv7aL1HG_PEMPOI.jpg

More like...  you didnt buy insurance so you force the neighbor who did to repair your burned down house.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

More like...  you didnt buy insurance so you force the neighbor who did to repair your burned down house.

Would you need insurance on state owned property?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WVK said:

Would you need insurance on state owned property?

Insurance is optional.  No one is required to have insurance but any risk of loss is on you...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Fine then I'll revise my statement: and you want to be the arbiter of what consistency is.

To quote myself:  

22 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Our respective countries need to sit down and create new legislation to address social media.

I just want consistent moderation. Right now we aren't getting it! You're trying to spin that into me wanting to be the one who decides, when I've never suggested that to be the case. It's not up to me, our countries need to make this legislation as the current legislation is not effective. 

 

15 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Did we not have 'town squares' before there was an internet?  Isn't it kinda odd to have something simultaneously being so public-sounding as 'town square' referring to something that could be shut down at will by for example Zuckerberg?  His private rights sure extend that far, he could simply remove this 'town square' from existence, which makes it very unlike any real 'town square'.

I don't understand your point here. Of course we had town squares before, we still technically do - it's called the street. Having a private internet company doesn't deny the modern existence of the town square, nor does the ability to shut down a cyber space like a social media platform make it less a place for public discourse. 

 

15 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Doubtful, I see zero evidence of this hypothetical. Right-wing media will simply emphasize property rights over free speech rights, it'll have the same effect on 'conservatives' as its had countless times before, and that'll be the way it's justified.  

Even if you are right (and I don't claim you are) all you're doing is demonstrating that I'm not a conservative. You can claim that this is what conservatives are going to do, but it's not what I'd do. If the right wing media decides to try and paint it as private companies being private that won't change my view. I don't follow the right wing media anymore than I follow the left wing media. 

I know it's hard to distinguish between what we think a political party will support vs what individuals discussing on a public forum will think, but I don't even classify myself as right wing, so right now it feels like you're arguing more with a hypothetical right winger than you are with me. 

 

15 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

This is just right-wing media mumbo-jumbo.  Here's what Google actually said:

"“We’re aware of continued posting in the Parler app that seeks to incite ongoing violence in the US,” a Google spokesperson said. “We recognize that there can be reasonable debate about content policies and that it can be difficult for apps to immediately remove all violative content, but for us to distribute an app through Google Play, we do require that apps implement robust moderation for egregious content. In light of this ongoing and urgent public safety threat, we are suspending the app’s listings from the Play Store until it addresses these issues.”

You are pretending like 'independent comparisons' (how scientific... :rolleyes: ) can provide definitive answers on something that is clearly a partially subjective evaluation.  I mean even your mention of 'just as likely', do you mean that just as a sheer quantity or a percentage of posts?  How are you weighing and equating how 'the same' the content actually is?  Or are you again pretending like you should be the arbiter of how to weigh incitements to violence for private companies?

 

Of course Google would spin this like they were just trying to look out for the common good. That media statement is as truthful as a Nigerian Prince email scam. The left wing Big Tech giants banded together to censor the right wing platforms which you guys told us to start. "Hey start your own social media platform..... then we'll get rid of it when it gets too big". I simply don't believe Google when they say they were just acting in the common good. Google is a left wing corporation hellbent on keeping its own power, and smaking down Parler was one of the ways they used their essential monopoly on internet searches to remove them. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social media is for dumb nobodies who like to think they are important. People have been murdered over here on BS stories that the morons sucked up so where's the censorship?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, openozy said:

Social media is for dumb nobodies who like to think they are important. People have been murdered over here on BS stories that the morons sucked up so where's the censorship?

I rarely use social media and post even less.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Considering Republicans want to hold social media companies accountable for what their users post, I'd think they'd disagree with that.

So?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Edumakated said:

Insurance is optional.  No one is required to have insurance but any risk of loss is on you...

Hi Ed 

Here your mortgage is dependent on you having insurance and not an option.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Ed 

Here your mortgage is dependent on you having insurance and not an option.

That's a condition of the loan.  Once you have paid your mortgage and actually own your property, it's then optional

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Essan said:

That's a condition of the loan.  Once you have paid your mortgage and actually own your property, it's then optional

Hi Essan

Yes but most homes are not owned outright and the majority are mortgaged so not having insurance would not be the norm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Essan

Yes but most homes are not owned outright and the majority are mortgaged so not having insurance would not be the norm.

True. 

Obviously emphasises a separate issue: why do people spend most of their lives paying off a mortgages so that just before they die they finally own their house! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Essan said:

True. 

Obviously emphasises a separate issue: why do people spend most of their lives paying off a mortgages so that just before they die they finally own their house! 

Hi Essan

Of course and part of my reasoning is that many people borrow on the equity on their homes to buy many things like other property or a new truck, motorhome, boat, etc..

When I was in Windsor both times was during union negotiations with auto manufactures and there was restructuring and letting people go so many had to put their houses up for sale and liquidate on leisure toys which they lost money on. A lot of those people would have been better off just not borrowing and having paid off their house but that is how our system works.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Essan said:

True. 

Obviously emphasises a separate issue: why do people spend most of their lives paying off a mortgages so that just before they die they finally own their house! 

The etymology of "mortgage" actually means death pledge.  You can get a mortgage paid off fairly quickly if you focus on it.  However, paying off a mortgage early isn't always the best financial move.  Most folks are better off just investing the proceeds in the market instead of paying off a mortgage early.  Nevertheless, there is something liberating about not having a mortgage once you enter into your retirement years.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2024 at 4:23 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

Did we not have 'town squares' before there was an internet?  Isn't it kinda odd to have something simultaneously being so public-sounding as 'town square' referring to something that could be shut down at will by for example Zuckerberg?  His private rights sure extend that far, he could simply remove this 'town square' from existence, which makes it very unlike any real 'town square'.

The correct term is "Speaker's Corner".  These places are a part of history for cities around the world.  Using an incorrect term raises the apprehension that that the person holding the grievance is not aware of the historical "Speaker's Corner".

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 3/2/2024 at 5:30 PM, Paranoid Android said:

I just want consistent moderation. Right now we aren't getting it! You're trying to spin that into me wanting to be the one who decides, when I've never suggested that to be the case.

I am not trying to 'spin' anything, when I'm referring to you as the 'arbiter' I don't mean that you are insisting that you be put in charge of this.  You are being the 'arbiter' of what 'consistent moderation' is in your statement since you are saying 'we're not getting it!'.  The only evidence so far that this is actually an issue is your vague reference to 'independent comparisons suggested'.  I asked you a couple questions about these, you didn't include any additional information in your reply, so I'm comfortable in questioning whether there is actually any problem here at all.

On 3/2/2024 at 5:30 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Having a private internet company doesn't deny the modern existence of the town square, nor does the ability to shut down a cyber space like a social media platform make it less a place for public discourse. 

The fact that it is private is what makes it less of a place for public discourse if that's what the ownership desires.  You are arguing for legislation, whether you are a conservative or not that still runs smack into the rights of people to use their property as they see fit as well as the owners' free speech rights.  Normally a lot of people would object to the govt doing this, if they drafted legislation that UM had to allow all comments I'd hope you'd object to that as violating Saru's rights. 

The potential legal argument/justification I've heard for stomping on private owners' property and speech rights is that if a private entity has semi-monopolistic ownership over something that people use overwhelmingly for speech then the 1st Amendment may apply to the users as if this entity was actually a public entity.  I don't personally buy this argument in this case, and the fact that you agree that the street corners haven't gone anywhere and can be used for speech like they always have this seems to me to weaken this 'social media should be treated like a public town square/forum'.  It's got nothing to do with 'free speech' to me, no one has ever had the right to speak whatever they want wherever they want.  I haven't had time to see I could easily find an example of when this has happened, where a private company is forced to host speech it doesn't want to by the govt.

On 3/2/2024 at 5:30 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Even if you are right (and I don't claim you are) all you're doing is demonstrating that I'm not a conservative.

Which is not relevant to what I replied to from your comment.  I have other reasons to think you are a conservative/right winger, but maybe this is a semantic point, when someone says something like 'I can't speak for all conservatives' typically they are at least part of the group they can't speak for.   I wouldn't ever say "I can't speak for all Christians' or 'I can't speak for all Nigerians' because I actually can't speak for 'any', since I'm not one of those groups.

Anyway your statement was about what some amount of conservatives would do if Musk deleted users was about 'conservatives', not just you so your response here about yourself isn't relevant.

On 3/2/2024 at 5:30 PM, Paranoid Android said:

The left wing Big Tech giants banded together to censor the right wing platforms which you guys told us to start.

Sorry, since we're only dealing with opinions here this just sounds whiny and an excuse.  Ain't nobody preventing right wingers from picking themselves up by their bootstraps and launching their own company to compete with Amazon and Google if you really think that's the issue.  What's the matter with Truth Social, I see that app listed on my App Store ready to download?

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2024 at 5:30 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Having a private internet company doesn't deny the modern existence of the town square, nor does the ability to shut down a cyber space like a social media platform make it less a place for public discourse. 

I found an article that better explains this legal point of when private companies may be treated as public, it's referred to I think as 'common carriers'.

Quote

It’s a strange reversal of words to label private editorial decisions “censorship,” and call laws that deprive media companies of the freedom to express their messages “free speech protection.” But that’s precisely the reversal that the Texas and Florida laws attempt. Although purporting to ban “censorship” by private companies, they actually impose true censorship, by forbidding the owners of private media businesses from deciding for themselves what messages to convey.

Lawyers for Texas and Florida struggled to advance that position by likening X and its allies to “common carriers” or “public accommodations”—a special class of businesses that have traditionally been forbidden from deciding whom to do business with. But these kinds of businesses are not alike. Rules about “common carriers” and “public accommodations” typically apply to companies that enjoy monopolistic power or some special government aid—like the 19th-century railroad companies that could use the power of eminent domain to lay their tracks. But none of that applies to today’s websites, and there’s plenty of competition in today’s social media world. Rivals to X and Facebook include Bluesky, Reddit, Mastodon, Threads, Discord, TikTok, Gab, YouTube, Substack, Rumble—and, of course, Truth Social that former President Donald Trump founded precisely because he was kicked off Twitter. Twitter itself has changed dramatically in just the past two years, after being bought—and rebranded as X—in direct response to its perceived liberal bias. Nor is anything stopping any would-be entrepreneur from starting a new social media company today. That’s precisely the kind of competition that freedom of speech—with its inherent public/private distinction—contemplates.

https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/for-justice-sam-alito-freedom-is

The author works for the Goldwater Institute which is decidedly not left-wing.  The whole article is pretty interesting and I didn't see a lot to disagree with.  He also doesn't mention anything about how unfairly Parler was supposedly treated.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 2/26/2024 at 3:08 PM, spartan max2 said:

I agree but I don't really see any way that government involvement wouldn't cause worse problems. 

It's just something customers have to decide.

Hence we have "X", truth social, and now Threads. People have options.

Perhaps a way to have companies police themselves?  Those who do a good job get a gov't grant; those that don't, don't get the grant.

Facebook has a program to censor certain words (just like UM does).  Computers could do most of the work.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2024 at 9:09 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

It’s a strange reversal of words to label private editorial decisions “censorship,” and call laws that deprive media companies of the freedom to express their messages “free speech protection.” But that’s precisely the reversal that the Texas and Florida laws attempt. Although purporting to ban “censorship” by private companies, they actually impose true censorship, by forbidding the owners of private media businesses from deciding for themselves what messages to convey.

Corporations are not people and should not have all the rights of private citizens.  Most are licensed by the government, making them part of the government and subject to its regulations.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 3/6/2024 at 11:26 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

I am not trying to 'spin' anything, when I'm referring to you as the 'arbiter' I don't mean that you are insisting that you be put in charge of this.  You are being the 'arbiter' of what 'consistent moderation' is in your statement since you are saying 'we're not getting it!'.  The only evidence so far that this is actually an issue is your vague reference to 'independent comparisons suggested'.  I asked you a couple questions about these, you didn't include any additional information in your reply, so I'm comfortable in questioning whether there is actually any problem here at all.

There is a double standard in social media moderation. This is an observable fact. As of right now, the law is inadequate to address the double standards. The government needs to create legislation to address it. 

If that is your definition of me wanting to be the "arbiter" of "consistent moderation", then so be it, I'm comfortable with that. 

 

On 3/6/2024 at 11:26 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

The fact that it is private is what makes it less of a place for public discourse if that's what the ownership desires.  You are arguing for legislation, whether you are a conservative or not that still runs smack into the rights of people to use their property as they see fit as well as the owners' free speech rights.  Normally a lot of people would object to the govt doing this, if they drafted legislation that UM had to allow all comments I'd hope you'd object to that as violating Saru's rights. 

The potential legal argument/justification I've heard for stomping on private owners' property and speech rights is that if a private entity has semi-monopolistic ownership over something that people use overwhelmingly for speech then the 1st Amendment may apply to the users as if this entity was actually a public entity.  I don't personally buy this argument in this case, and the fact that you agree that the street corners haven't gone anywhere and can be used for speech like they always have this seems to me to weaken this 'social media should be treated like a public town square/forum'.  It's got nothing to do with 'free speech' to me, no one has ever had the right to speak whatever they want wherever they want.  I haven't had time to see I could easily find an example of when this has happened, where a private company is forced to host speech it doesn't want to by the govt.

UM is too niche, I'm sure whatever legislation the government could create would satisfactorily separate the small niche communities like these with the global social media tech giants that everyone uses like Twitter/X or Facebook. But I appreciate the quality of your argument, and acknowledge the difficulties present in such potential legislation. 

 

On 3/6/2024 at 11:26 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

Which is not relevant to what I replied to from your comment.  I have other reasons to think you are a conservative/right winger, but maybe this is a semantic point, when someone says something like 'I can't speak for all conservatives' typically they are at least part of the group they can't speak for.   I wouldn't ever say "I can't speak for all Christians' or 'I can't speak for all Nigerians' because I actually can't speak for 'any', since I'm not one of those groups.

Anyway your statement was about what some amount of conservatives would do if Musk deleted users was about 'conservatives', not just you so your response here about yourself isn't relevant.

Fair call, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, then, I really think conservatives would prefer consistent moderation on social media, and if that means forcing Musk/X to set certain standards, I genuinely think most conservatives would cheer that outcome. Unless it was somehow legislation that would impact Twitter/X but not platforms like Facebook or Instagram.... but that'll be another argument for another time. 

 

On 3/6/2024 at 11:26 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

Sorry, since we're only dealing with opinions here this just sounds whiny and an excuse.  Ain't nobody preventing right wingers from picking themselves up by their bootstraps and launching their own company to compete with Amazon and Google if you really think that's the issue.  What's the matter with Truth Social, I see that app listed on my App Store ready to download?

:blink: Of course we're discussing opinions. This is a discussion forum about politics, it's impossible to discuss this without opinions. 

Why do you reckon it is that Truth Social is still up and running but not Parler, even though the people joining Parler and Truth Social are arguably drawn from the same demographics? Parler didn't have the resources available that Trump's company has, so when they set up their services they had to use Amazon servers. That put Parler at the mercy of left wing tech giants, who were able to censor their content. Trump was able to engage the web hosting services of RightForge, a conservative tech company that promotes itself as a protector of free speech. A company that was created as a direct result of Amazon's decision to pull Parler from their hosting services, if you believe the link I provided.

Quote

Avila said RightForge created its network this year in response to Trump being banned by major social media apps and after Amazon pulled right-wing social media network Parler from its web servers, per Axios.

If Parler had used a non-left wing, non-activist company to host their services, they may very well still be around. Sadly we know that's not what happened, because Amazon kicked them off.  

I guarantee you due to the size of the two companies, engaging the services of RightForge will be more expensive than Amazon, but it might be a fee Truth Social/Trump is willing to pay for the goodwill associated with a company espousing to stand for free speech rather than the left wing lunacy of Amazon. If right wing social media companies are going to need to pay higher start up fees in order to be as safe from censorship as left wing social media companies, then that's a problem, in my opinion. 

 

On 3/7/2024 at 2:09 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

I found an article that better explains this legal point of when private companies may be treated as public, it's referred to I think as 'common carriers'.

https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/for-justice-sam-alito-freedom-is

The author works for the Goldwater Institute which is decidedly not left-wing.  The whole article is pretty interesting and I didn't see a lot to disagree with.  He also doesn't mention anything about how unfairly Parler was supposedly treated.

I understand the current legal guidelines. My argument is that the current law is insufficient and our government's need to act to create new legislation to deal with it. But thank you for summarises why such laws are currently inadequate. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.