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

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

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. 

First of all, show proof of the double standard.  Second of all, social media is a world wide network?  Which government should create the legislation?  

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

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

First of all, show proof of the double standard. 

If you haven't seen it, you aren't looking. On a macro scale,  the Covid lab leak theory and Hunter's laptop from hell stand out as two of the larger stories that were censored in favour of progressive ideology. On an individual level we have examples such as Gina Carano losing her job from Disney for posting political content on social media comparing America to Nazi Germany, while her co-stars on the left of politics (Pedro Pascal and Carl Weathers) have posted near-identical content from the other side of the political aisle and seem to have not even had a talking to.  There's a lawsuit about that right now. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/variety.com/2024/tv/news/gina-carano-disney-lawsuit-mandalorian-lucasfilm-1235899939/amp/

It's beyond debate that there is a double standard!

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

Second of all, social media is a world wide network?  Which government should create the legislation?  

Each country has to set its own laws, right now neither my country nor yours has adequate laws, imo! Then social media companies will have to modify their practices if they wish to continue operating in the country! 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2024 at 8:52 PM, Paranoid Android said:

There is a double standard in social media moderation. This is an observable fact.

This is about the third comment you've made saying the exact same thing without backing it up, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

On 3/9/2024 at 8:52 PM, Paranoid Android said:

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

I said of course, 'only opinions'.  Not all opinions are equal, it's usually what backs up the opinion that is the interesting part.  You've made this claim before about double standards and content moderation and last time you tried to justify it with your personal experiences that, at least in some of the cases, had other explanations than your interpretation.  As well as the silliness of determining a position on social media with billions of users from the insignificant data set of 'my personal experience (and most importantly, my interpretation)'.

On 3/9/2024 at 8:52 PM, Paranoid Android said:

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. 

Ha, that's not a problem, that is business.  You seem to want to punish businesses for being very successful at what they are doing, and definitely want to violate their speech rights.  If someone invents a new soft drink do you think it's 'a problem' if Coca-Cola refuses to let them use their bottling and distribution networks so they don't have to do the work Coke already did and pay fees?  You've already explained how Truth Social is up by putting the work and investment in which pretty much undercuts your argument that the reason we don't get to enjoy Parler is because of something unfair on the part of Google and Amazon.

On 3/9/2024 at 8:52 PM, Paranoid Android said:

UM is too niche

People are still being 'censored' here though in the exact same way you think happens elsewhere.  Why don't you care about those UM people, if it really has nothing to do with the political viewpoint of the speech?  What happened to your favorite yet often misapplied Holocaust poem, 'First they came for the...'?

On 3/9/2024 at 8:52 PM, Paranoid Android said:

But thank you for summarises why such laws are currently inadequate.

Where in the article did it say that current laws are inadequate, the whole thing argues against your desire to use the power of government to violate people's rights?  Which is of course something I think you argue against in other cases, speaking of 'double standards'.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

This is about the third comment you've made saying the exact same thing without backing it up, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

On 3/9/2024 at 5:52 PM, Paranoid Android said:

You can say men are women and it's proven by science but can't say vaccines are being used to microchip humanity.  Neither is true but both are typically told by one side of the political aisle and one does not get censored.  Any vaccine disinformation was being removed from platforms such as Twitter and Facebook as well as people relating their own negative experiences with the vaccine. To deny this is a thing is not honest.

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

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

You can say men are women and it's proven by science but can't say vaccines are being used to microchip humanity.  Neither is true but both are typically told by one side of the political aisle and one does not get censored.

The claim is that there is a political 'double standard' in play.  If a false statement is removed that a particular side of the aisle believes more than the other, then that raises the question of whether the comment was removed because they don't want to host those political viewpoints or instead that they don't want to host bs.  If a geology blog removes a comment from a Young Earth Creationist arguing the earth is only 10000 years old it's misleading to state that situation as, 'Christians are being censored on' this geology blog.

It is an opinion of yours that men can't be women, the experts disagree on what those words mean especially in different contexts which your statement glosses over.  On the other hand what a vaccine and a microchip are is much more definite.  If we want to support the latter then we find evidence that microchips are included in vaccines, pretty straightforward.  To support the former you not only need to provide evidence you need to argue why you have 'the' definition of 'men' and 'women', why it's a superior definition, and why anyone else need adhere to it.  Thus I don't find this a good comparison to vaccine disinformation, double standards require equal situations concerning the relevant points.

Furthermore it's not a double-standard if the potential effect or danger of the ideas are not equal.  Just due to the number of people involved I don't see how it's unreasonable for a moderator to suspect that vaccine disinformation is a greater danger than opinions on what the words 'men' and 'women' mean.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If a geology blog removes a comment from a Young Earth Creationist arguing the earth is only 10000 years old it's misleading to state that situation as, 'Christians are being censored on' this geology blog.

Much different than having your vax-conspiracy post removed from YouTube,  Twitter or Facebook. 

 

46 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It is an opinion of yours that men can't be women, the experts disagree on what those words mean especially in different contexts which your statement glosses over. 

And I could no doubt post an expert opinion that confirms that the Covid vaccine can be dangerous.

Getting away from the point though, because none of the examples are the point.  The point is that controversial claims being removed from social media usually go in one direction. 

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Much different than having your vaxif-conspiracy post removed from YouTube,  Twitter or Facebook. 

Not as far as the point I was making.  There's no double standard against the right-wing if the criteria is actually what is true and what things are potentially more dangerous than others.  Ain't nobody's fault except the right wing if the right wing wishes to disproportionately embrace and champion those ideas.

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

And I could no doubt post an expert opinion that confirms that the Covid vaccine can be dangerous.

Actually you couldn't because expert opinions don't 'confirm' squat, evidence does.  It's already known that all vaccines 'can be' dangerous.

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

The point is that controversial claims being removed from social media usually go in one direction. 

The direction of false and sometimes potentially dangerous statements?  You say that like it's a problem.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Not as far as the point I was making.  There's no double standard against the right-wing if the criteria is actually what is true and what things are potentially more dangerous than others.  Ain't nobody's fault except the right wing if the right wing wishes to disproportionately embrace and champion those ideas.

ON those platforms?  I don't agree.  I guess it depends on what you want to say is "dangerous".

47 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Actually you couldn't because expert opinions don't 'confirm' squat, evidence does.  It's already known that all vaccines 'can be' dangerous.

And yet that was considered a right wing talking point and deleted from the media giants I mentioned earlier.

47 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The direction of false and sometimes potentially dangerous statements?  You say that like it's a problem.  

Again, I don't see them as dangerous.  When Uncle Ira gets on Facebook and X and starts making conspiracy claims I don't think it's dangerous and it's legal, which in my opinion should be the threshold for editing people especially at the governments behest.  If someone doesn't like it they can do what I do to the View and ignore it.

 

Edit:  I think it should also be noted that taking such content down seems to only boost it's popularity with the conspiracy crowd, so what's the point?  Logic rarely convinces flat earthers, but you know what does? letting them embarrass themselves by spouting their doctrine.

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

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I guess it depends on what you want to say is "dangerous".

You don't think any anti-vax talking points are dangerous?  And of course it doesn't matter what you and I consider to be dangerous, we don't own the site.  What happened to the importance of liberty?

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

And yet that was considered a right wing talking point and deleted from the media giants I mentioned earlier.

Is that why the media giants said they deleted it, because it was a right wing talking point?

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

When Uncle Ira gets on Facebook and X and starts making conspiracy claims I don't think it's dangerous and it's legal, which in my opinion should be the threshold for editing people especially at the governments behest. 

Talking about holocaust denial and how certain races are mentally inferior to others according to science are both legal here too, as are of course some slurs and such.  It just comes across as bizarre to me, I have no understanding why I assume in some appeal to 'freedom of speech' commenters should be able to say anything they want yet the free speech rights of owners are essentially ignored. Why is Uncle Ira's more important?  Do advertisers get to decide whether they want their ads to show on sites next to ideas they and most people find offensive, or is their freedom to be curtailed too?  If not, the owner has to prioritize allowing any legal comments over its actual customers which are advertisers?

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I think it should also be noted that taking such content down seems to only boost it's popularity with the conspiracy crowd, so what's the point? 

So that people don't have their actual free speech rights trampled?  When you're ready to offer up your own property for the merely legal speech of others it'd be easier to accept this argument, I've got some great signs we can put up in your yard ("Nickelback is the most authentic and innovative rock band ever!")  and if you remove them it'll of course be 'censorship'.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

You can say men are women and it's proven by science

No you can't. 

What you can say is gender is different to sex and some identify as a different gender to their sex. Science does not say more than that. 

This is a right wing comprehension problem. Not censorship. If one can't tell the difference between gender and sex, then thats just deliberate ignorance. Not censorship. 

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

but can't say vaccines are being used to microchip humanity. 

Because it's an easily disprovable lie. 

And it feeds anti vax ideology which is harmful to the community.

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

Neither is true but both are typically told by one side of the political aisle and one does not get censored. 

Really, then why is JK Rowling constantly in headlines for stalking trans people? 

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

Any vaccine disinformation was being removed from platforms such as Twitter and Facebook as well as people relating their own negative experiences with the vaccine. To deny this is a thing is not honest.

Why do you think disinformation, as admitted above, has the right to exist and parade as fact? It's like your ideology is trying to protect the right to lie. That would be ridiculous wouldn't it. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You don't think any anti-vax talking points are dangerous?  And of course it doesn't matter what you and I consider to be dangerous, we don't own the site.  What happened to the importance of liberty?

I was specific about the behest of the government which is well documented from the Twitter data release by Musk and also on information about Hunter Biden. I think it’s difficult to argue there is not a left bias when it comes to censorship.

 

53 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Is that why the media giants said they deleted it, because it was a right wing talking point?

They didn’t say it, it just is what it is.

54 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Talking about holocaust denial and how certain races are mentally inferior to others according to science are both legal here too, as are of course some slurs and such.  It just comes across as bizarre to me, I have no understanding why I assume in some appeal to 'freedom of speech' commenters should be able to say anything they want yet the free speech rights of owners are essentially ignored. Why is Uncle Ira's more important?  Do advertisers get to decide whether they want their ads to show on sites next to ideas they and most people find offensive, or is their freedom to be curtailed too?  If not, the owner has to prioritize allowing any legal comments over its actual customers which are advertisers?

Again I was specific about the behest of government and also noting this censorship seems to mainly go one way. IMO a lot of left wing lies are more dangerous to a cohesive society than vax conspiracies but I don’t believe those should be censored either. I’m not afraid of individuals spouting their opinions if they are true, false, left, right, whatever. I’m against big business and government colluding to steer their preferred narrative or agenda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No you can't. 

What you can say is gender is different to sex and some identify as a different gender to their sex. Science does not say more than that. 

I mean and not have it deleted. Keep up with the actual discussion. 

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I mean and not have it deleted. Keep up with the actual discussion. 

If you actually get it right it's not deleted is it. 

If you post misinformation to flame people why should it not be deleted? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

If you actually get it right it's not deleted is it. 

If you post misinformation to flame people why should it not be deleted? 

If you post your own experience about for example, your child dying due to covid vaccine complications should it be censored? Because factually that happened. The argument here is not if or when or why something is censored however. It’s the political bias that it tends to be directed with. Therefore arguments about semantics and particulars is not relevant. Usually if the subject is legal the censorship is political and directed at the right wing

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I was specific about the behest of the government

Actually you said 'especially at the behest of the government'; 'especially' means specifically that the behest of the government is not required in this case.

15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I think it’s difficult to argue there is not a left bias when it comes to censorship.

Depends what you mean by 'bias' I guess.  I don't see a clear 'double standard', unless you have two things that are pretty directly comparable it's difficult to classify political statements as 'the same'. Microchips compared to what the word 'man' means is not one of these instances.  Apparently even Musk's Twitter was biased towards the right wing for at least a while: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets.  

22 minutes ago, OverSword said:

IMO a lot of left wing lies are more dangerous to a cohesive society than vax conspiracies but I don’t believe those should be censored either.

IMO the right wing lie about who won the last election is close to the most dangerous political lie in circulation, especially given the surprising number of innumerate people who believe it. Regardless, why is a commenter's free speech rights more important than that of the people who own it, why don't their rights deserve protection (or seemingly even a mention)?  That's how it works with book publishers, newspapers, magazines, and just about every other site that allows comments on their site?  

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If you post your own experience about for example, your child dying due to covid vaccine complications should it be censored? Because factually that happened. The argument here is not if or when or why something is censored however. It’s the political bias that it tends to be directed with. Therefore arguments about semantics and particulars is not relevant.

If it's a genuine case it will be recorded medically and will be picked up by news organisations everywhere because it's actually a rare event. 

Rare events make news. And they did. Some rare occurrences happened and were owned by those responsible. 

Who takes responsibility for the BS artists? That which you object to. You are protecting the worst elements of society yet again. 

Anecdotes aren't genuine stories. I've even seen posters here try to blame to vaccine for things clearly not related to it. Katniss is doing great diagnosing them and telling them to actually see a doctor. Dumbass biased dr Google self diagnosis isn't worth protecting. That would be encouraging stupidity. 

Genuine people would want answers. Not headlines and coverage. 

16 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Usually if the subject is legal the censorship is political and directed at the right wing

Ohh gees I wonder why .......

Maybe because the right wing focuses on rumours and lies, be and is more politically orientated than the left, why can accept better advice from studied professionals? Covid is a great example. Non stop bs, and Republican aholes harassing people in the street for wearing a mask. Or perhaps after piles of BS about a laptop actually turning out to be piles of BS the right dropped to the level of a fictional movie to push an agenda, or all those right wing people behind Jan 6? 

Breitbart, Rebel News etc are all garbage rags that exist to exaggerate instances to rile people up. Right wingers seek reasons to be outraged. Act like an ahole, get treated like an ahole. Who knew huh .

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

This is about the third comment you've made saying the exact same thing without backing it up, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

Are you denying that there isn't a double standard in moderation on social media? 

I provided several examples in my post above to Agent Orange. Let's take the lab leak theory. In 2020, while Trump was the president conservatives would discuss the lab leak theory.... or at least they'd try to, because social media declared it a dangerous conspiracy theory and discussion of the lab leak theory was forbidden, with people removed from social media for posting about it. Then in 2021, after Trump lost the presidency, progressives floated the idea of a lab leak theory, and now it's not only acceptable to talk about the lab leak theory online, but several organisations have gone on the record to say that based on the information they have they believe the lab leak theory is in fact the most likely to be true. Moreover, we've also been shown documented evidence that the scientists who studied Covid were talking about a potential lab leak in emails from basically the very start, right at the time social media was censoring conservatives for misinformation. 

This is just one example, it's beyond reasonable doubt that a double standard exists, however, so asking me to prove that there is censorship is like asking me to prove that water is wet - I could go into the science if I was a science teacher, but I don't really need to do that because it's just obvious that water is wet! 

 

13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I said of course, 'only opinions'.  Not all opinions are equal, it's usually what backs up the opinion that is the interesting part.  You've made this claim before about double standards and content moderation and last time you tried to justify it with your personal experiences that, at least in some of the cases, had other explanations than your interpretation.  As well as the silliness of determining a position on social media with billions of users from the insignificant data set of 'my personal experience (and most importantly, my interpretation)'.

Look into the lab leak theory. Or Hunter's laptop. You know, the one that social media blocked for being "potentially hacked material"? A BS excuse that would never have been used if the laptop belonged to Eric Trump (for example). 

There's a lawsuit right now from Gina Carano over being fired for saying something on social media that her costars also said, but her costars are from the opposite side of the political aisle: 

Gina Carano's comments, which she was fired over: 

Gina Carano instagram post

Pedro Pascal's Comments, he is still working for Disney:

2020.11.08-03.26-boundingintocomics-5fa7

Redefining "Anti-Semitism" in the Gina Carano Controversy? Or Just  Inaccurate Reporting?

13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Ha, that's not a problem, that is business.  You seem to want to punish businesses for being very successful at what they are doing, and definitely want to violate their speech rights.  If someone invents a new soft drink do you think it's 'a problem' if Coca-Cola refuses to let them use their bottling and distribution networks so they don't have to do the work Coke already did and pay fees?  You've already explained how Truth Social is up by putting the work and investment in which pretty much undercuts your argument that the reason we don't get to enjoy Parler is because of something unfair on the part of Google and Amazon.

:blink:  We're not talking about a new product taking over Coca-Cola. You do realise that Amazon hosts web servers for many other websites. It's part of the services that they offer. They are one of the biggest, and therefore cheapest, out there. But they are a left wing activist company just like all the other Big Tech giants, and they squeeze ideologies they disagree with, hence why they kicked Parler off their servers, even though the existence of Truth Social proves beyond doubt that their decision to get rid of Parler was 100% political! 

An ISP is a better analogy than machinery from a company. Many telephone companies rent internet lines from other companies and then offer a discounted internet service using that provider. 

 

13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

People are still being 'censored' here though in the exact same way you think happens elsewhere.  Why don't you care about those UM people, if it really has nothing to do with the political viewpoint of the speech?  What happened to your favorite yet often misapplied Holocaust poem, 'First they came for the...'?

Whether you like the moderation standards or not, here they are at least consistent. We know what the rules are, and we know that the rules will be applied to people equally regardless of their political alignment. I cannot say the same about Big Tech or any social media platform.  

 

13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Where in the article did it say that current laws are inadequate, the whole thing argues against your desire to use the power of government to violate people's rights?  Which is of course something I think you argue against in other cases, speaking of 'double standards'.

The article addressed the situation from the current legal viewpoint. My point was that we need new legislation, and the conclusions that this article arrive at are my reasons for believing new legislation is required. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Actually you said 'especially at the behest of the government'; 'especially' means specifically that the behest of the government is not required in this case.

Depends what you mean by 'bias' I guess.  I don't see a clear 'double standard', unless you have two things that are pretty directly comparable it's difficult to classify political statements as 'the same'. Microchips compared to what the word 'man' means is not one of these instances.  Apparently even Musk's Twitter was biased towards the right wing for at least a while: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets.  

IMO the right wing lie about who won the last election is close to the most dangerous political lie in circulation, especially given the surprising number of innumerate people who believe it. Regardless, why is a commenter's free speech rights more important than that of the people who own it, why don't their rights deserve protection (or seemingly even a mention)?  That's how it works with book publishers, newspapers, magazines, and just about every other site that allows comments on their site?  

Like I think I said much earlier in this thread at some point the largest of these sites at some point will have to be treated as a public square. That has yet to happen but I think it’s inevitable and when that happens the owners of sites like this will either have to protect the first amendment for the privilege of cashing in on administrating such entities or lose them. 
Until then they are free to censor as they see fit. What can’t happen has been determined that the government cannot request that such entities violate first amendment rights. 
As far as what should be censored as far as I’m personally concerned is only that which is illegal. I believe we are much better off knowing what people think and keeping an eye on those who may pose a danger. 

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2024 at 10:33 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Are you denying that there isn't a double standard in moderation on social media?

I'm denying that you have mustered much evidence for this belief of yours.

On 3/11/2024 at 10:33 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Let's take the lab leak theory.

I guess I didn't realize this was a conservative or right-wing position.  You talk about how their position changed over time, welcome to science, that's how it works, more arguments and evidence come forth and positions logically change.  They provided a reason they did not want it on their site, because of anti-asian violence.  I know you like to just wave away the reasons they provide for doing what they do but let's not confuse your imagination with an argument.  Show me why they had no reason to worry about the effect of posting this unproven theory, during a time when misinformation on the web was a popular topic.

Your accusation of a double-standard would be better evidenced if you could make a case for something else that was equally as potentially dangerous that is left wing that they did allow to be posted.  But of course that runs into all kinds of problems, it's very difficult to say two things are 'the same' especially when as I've discussed with Oversword there may be other non-political-bias reasons to not post it, like because it's not true and dangerous.

On 3/11/2024 at 10:33 PM, Paranoid Android said:

There's a lawsuit right now from Gina Carano

That has nothing to do with social media moderation afaik, it has to do with supposed cancel culture, at which the right is just as enthusiastic.  What you posted just shows to me how not-the-same the things you are trying to compare from her and Pedro are, and how conveniently for you to leave out that this wasn't her first time she posted junk that she herself admitted were wrong and apologized for.  Anyway, if you don't understand the difference between that disturbing picture of a massacre of Jews in progress and the other two, I can't help you.

On 3/11/2024 at 10:33 PM, Paranoid Android said:

We're not talking about a new product taking over Coca-Cola.

I forgot you don't do analogies.  The point is for you to note that, of course, no that wouldn't make sense, Coke has no obligation to do such a thing with their property, that would violate their rights.  So why then does it not violate rights when right-wing social media sites want to use someone else's property, how is that not a double standard?  The reason I have to go this level is you seem to struggle to even mention the rights inherent with property ownership.  What rights do you think you have as far as your property, and how are they lesser than other people's speech rights?

On 3/11/2024 at 10:33 PM, Paranoid Android said:

You do realise that Amazon hosts web servers for many other websites. It's part of the services that they offer. They are one of the biggest, and therefore cheapest, out there.

What does 'cheapest' have to do with this?  No business has a right to the cheapest anything.  Amazon has 6% marketshare in hosting websites, that leaves lots of other options.  I'm not getting your point. 

On 3/11/2024 at 10:33 PM, Paranoid Android said:

But they are a left wing activist company just like all the other Big Tech giants, and they squeeze ideologies they disagree with, hence why they kicked Parler off their servers, even though the existence of Truth Social proves beyond doubt that their decision to get rid of Parler was 100% political! 

How so?  I thought you said Truth Social had enough money to not have to use companies like Amazon, how does that show their decision with regard to Parler was political?  Why didn't Parler just do the same thing, Truth Social shows that right wing social media sites exist?

On 3/11/2024 at 10:33 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Whether you like the moderation standards or not, here they are at least consistent.

Not necessarily, not if we look at it like you view it.  There are subjects here that can't be discussed that are held by more people on one side than the other.  In an extreme case holocaust denial may be more often believed by people on the far right (or if you want, the praising of taking psychedelics by the far left) so when UM 'censors' that content it's a double-standard too then (at least to those who believe they can determine when things are 'equal').  If you want to say that doesn't count because there's no evidence that UM censors that content because of political reasons and there are other non-political reasons to censor it, I totally agree, but then that applies to censoring things like anti-vax junk too, no matter which side favors it.  For your double-standard theory, you need to show things are being censored because they are right wing, not just that they happen to be right wing.

On 3/11/2024 at 10:33 PM, Paranoid Android said:

the conclusions that this article arrive at are my reasons for believing new legislation is required. 

I honestly have trouble matching up the conclusions of that article as possible reasons, it seems to pretty consistently argue exactly against your position. 

I will admit this is a weird experience to be arguing a more conservative and libertarian position against you, as well as being surprised how willing you seem to be to use the power of the government to violate rights that people have concerning their own speech and property. Seems awfully inconsistent.

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm denying that you have mustered much evidence for this belief of yours.

Then search it yourself, to me it's beyond doubt, as obvious as saying "water is wet". I don't care enough to scientifically prove that water is wet, it's enough for me to know that it is. 

 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I guess I didn't realize this was a conservative or right-wing position.  You talk about how their position changed over time, welcome to science, that's how it works, more arguments and evidence come forth and positions logically change.  They provided a reason they did not want it on their site, because of anti-asian violence.  I know you like to just wave away the reasons they provide for doing what they do but let's not confuse your imagination with an argument.  Show me why they had no reason to worry about the effect of posting this unproven theory, during a time when misinformation on the web was a popular topic.

Your accusation of a double-standard would be better evidenced if you could make a case for something else that was equally as potentially dangerous that is left wing that they did allow to be posted.  But of course that runs into all kinds of problems, it's very difficult to say two things are 'the same' especially when as I've discussed with Oversword there may be other non-political-bias reasons to not post it, like because it's not true and dangerous.

That has nothing to do with social media moderation afaik, it has to do with supposed cancel culture, at which the right is just as enthusiastic.  What you posted just shows to me how not-the-same the things you are trying to compare from her and Pedro are, and how conveniently for you to leave out that this wasn't her first time she posted junk that she herself admitted were wrong and apologized for.  Anyway, if you don't understand the difference between that disturbing picture of a massacre of Jews in progress and the other two, I can't help you.

I'll accept that the Gina Carano story is more about cancel culture than social media moderation. Though arguably if the laws about social media were more consistent then the reaction to people from different political persuasions should arguably also be more consistent. 

 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I forgot you don't do analogies. 

Try an Internet Service Provider (ISP), that's a much better analogy than a bottling facility owned by Coca-cola! And arguably the analogy makes more sense when you compare it to that anyway (see next paragraph, for example)

 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What does 'cheapest' have to do with this?  No business has a right to the cheapest anything.  Amazon has 6% marketshare in hosting websites, that leaves lots of other options.  I'm not getting your point. 

If my internet provider refused to let me use the internet on the basis that I will post pro-free speech messages, and I was forced to buy my internet from a conservative company that champions free speech, but this is a much smaller company and therefore has higher operating costs and therefore a higher cost to the consumer (me), if that was my only method of ensuring I can post regularly on the internet because otherwise my company would ban me, then that is a problem.

How you cannot see this problem is a question I do not know how to answer. 

 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

How so?  I thought you said Truth Social had enough money to not have to use companies like Amazon, how does that show their decision with regard to Parler was political?  Why didn't Parler just do the same thing, Truth Social shows that right wing social media sites exist?

Parler chose to use Amazon servers. I don't know if they thought about it beforehand or their reasons for choosing so. But obviously it backfired, and now any company that believes in free speech needs to go somewhere that is not Amazon if they wish to run their website! For Truth Social, that was RightForge. Other companies have used other servers, Amazon is the only one that chose to take the extreme step of denying their servers to those who rented them! 

 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Not necessarily, not if we look at it like you view it.  There are subjects here that can't be discussed that are held by more people on one side than the other.  In an extreme case holocaust denial may be more often believed by people on the far right (or if you want, the praising of taking psychedelics by the far left) so when UM 'censors' that content it's a double-standard too then (at least to those who believe they can determine when things are 'equal').  If you want to say that doesn't count because there's no evidence that UM censors that content because of political reasons and there are other non-political reasons to censor it, I totally agree, but then that applies to censoring things like anti-vax junk too, no matter which side favors it.  For your double-standard theory, you need to show things are being censored because they are right wing, not just that they happen to be right wing.

I honestly have trouble matching up the conclusions of that article as possible reasons, it seems to pretty consistently argue exactly against your position. 

I will admit this is a weird experience to be arguing a more conservative and libertarian position against you, as well as being surprised how willing you seem to be to use the power of the government to violate rights that people have concerning their own speech and property. Seems awfully inconsistent.

I 100% disagree with your example. If a topic is not allowed, then so be it. As long as it's not allowed by all, I'd be comfortable with that. But that's not what we've seen! Right wingers would talk about the lab leak theory and were censored for doing so. Then when left wingers started to talk about a lab leak theory, social media changed its policies and now it's ok for everyone to talk about it. That's censorship, pure and simple!  

Yes, I understand how anti-libertarian my stance is. As a general rule I do believe that smaller government is better. But there are some situations where that just doesn't fly with me. One of those areas is universal healthcare. I really believe that the government providing health care for all its citizens is a great thing. Internet and social media censorship is the other major area that I don't have a problem with legislating, because unfortunately the discrimination and double standards of private companies treading on the rights of people's free speech is just too big to ignore. In general I agree that private companies should have the right to do what they want with their private products. Social media is an exception to that generalisation, just like universal healthcare is an exception to the generalisation. 

You've missed my point on the conclusion of the article. The fact that the article was able to conclude like this is precisely the problem I have with it - and to reiterate my point from the start, is exactly why the law needs to be changed. That reasoning is bad reasoning. It fits with the law as it currently stands, but in my opinion the current laws are simply WRONG and do not do enough to protect people online. Hence the reason legislation needs to be introduced to address the impact of social media. The last time a law about the internet was drafted the internet was still in its infancy, and many of the issues with things like social media were not known. Now they are known and people can deal with them, but legislation needs to be changed first. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm denying that you have mustered much evidence for this belief of yours.

I guess I didn't realize this was a conservative or right-wing position.  You talk about how their position changed over time, welcome to science, that's how it works, more arguments and evidence come forth and positions logically change.  They provided a reason they did not want it on their site, because of anti-asian violence.  I know you like to just wave away the reasons they provide for doing what they do but let's not confuse your imagination with an argument.  Show me why they had no reason to worry about the effect of posting this unproven theory, during a time when misinformation on the web was a popular topic.

Your accusation of a double-standard would be better evidenced if you could make a case for something else that was equally as potentially dangerous that is left wing that they did allow to be posted.  But of course that runs into all kinds of problems, it's very difficult to say two things are 'the same' especially when as I've discussed with Oversword there may be other non-political-bias reasons to not post it, like because it's not true and dangerous.

That has nothing to do with social media moderation afaik, it has to do with supposed cancel culture, at which the right is just as enthusiastic.  What you posted just shows to me how not-the-same the things you are trying to compare from her and Pedro are, and how conveniently for you to leave out that this wasn't her first time she posted junk that she herself admitted were wrong and apologized for.  Anyway, if you don't understand the difference between that disturbing picture of a massacre of Jews in progress and the other two, I can't help you.

I forgot you don't do analogies.  The point is for you to note that, of course, no that wouldn't make sense, Coke has no obligation to do such a thing with their property, that would violate their rights.  So why then does it not violate rights when right-wing social media sites want to use someone else's property, how is that not a double standard?  The reason I have to go this level is you seem to struggle to even mention the rights inherent with property ownership.  What rights do you think you have as far as your property, and how are they lesser than other people's speech rights?

What does 'cheapest' have to do with this?  No business has a right to the cheapest anything.  Amazon has 6% marketshare in hosting websites, that leaves lots of other options.  I'm not getting your point. 

How so?  I thought you said Truth Social had enough money to not have to use companies like Amazon, how does that show their decision with regard to Parler was political?  Why didn't Parler just do the same thing, Truth Social shows that right wing social media sites exist?

Not necessarily, not if we look at it like you view it.  There are subjects here that can't be discussed that are held by more people on one side than the other.  In an extreme case holocaust denial may be more often believed by people on the far right (or if you want, the praising of taking psychedelics by the far left) so when UM 'censors' that content it's a double-standard too then (at least to those who believe they can determine when things are 'equal').  If you want to say that doesn't count because there's no evidence that UM censors that content because of political reasons and there are other non-political reasons to censor it, I totally agree, but then that applies to censoring things like anti-vax junk too, no matter which side favors it.  For your double-standard theory, you need to show things are being censored because they are right wing, not just that they happen to be right wing.

I honestly have trouble matching up the conclusions of that article as possible reasons, it seems to pretty consistently argue exactly against your position. 

I will admit this is a weird experience to be arguing a more conservative and libertarian position against you, as well as being surprised how willing you seem to be to use the power of the government to violate rights that people have concerning their own speech and property. Seems awfully inconsistent.

I think what is being said is that cloud services are not gay cake. 

Therefore, a rich Bourgeoisie conglomerate has no place choosing to protect their brand on idealogical grounds - unlike the mum-and-dad bakery business.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I think what is being said is that cloud services are not gay cake. 

Therefore, a rich Bourgeoisie conglomerate has no place choosing to protect their brand on idealogical grounds - unlike the mum-and-dad bakery business.

Internet laws were written before the extent of the internet was really known. Your argument here is not too far from what I'm actually saying! Mum-and-dad businesses are too small to impact anything. Big conglomerate businesses are used by everyone, and the manner in which they are used is consistent with how a town square has operated in years before the internet. As such, these companies need to be legislated with laws that do not yet exist, to protect free speech in a private online world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I think what is being said is that cloud services are not gay cake. 

Therefore, a rich Bourgeoisie conglomerate has no place choosing to protect their brand on idealogical grounds - unlike the mum-and-dad bakery business.

Good point.  I have two words I've heard a lot lately to describe this:  "double standards".

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

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Internet laws were written before the extent of the internet was really known. Your argument here is not too far from what I'm actually saying! Mum-and-dad businesses are too small to impact anything. Big conglomerate businesses are used by everyone, and the manner in which they are used is consistent with how a town square has operated in years before the internet. As such, these companies need to be legislated with laws that do not yet exist, to protect free speech in a private online world. 

Lets get it right.

A "town square" is what happens in the public space outside of Treasury Casino every Wenesday.  Mums and dads set up there temporau stalls to sell their wares.

"Speaker Corner" is the place outside Parliament House were protests usually take place.

Private enities should be free to make a decision about what moral hazard they accept, regardless of whether its gay cake or cloud services.

Of course entities are free to choose whether or not they accept the risk of breaking the law.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

to protect free speech in a private online world. 

By violating the free speech rights, at least the actual meaning of those words, of others.

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Big conglomerate businesses are used by everyone, and the manner in which they are used is consistent with how a town square has operated in years before the internet.

The town square is still there though.  Isn't it odd that despite you believing that free speech is not protected and is 'censored' that you still seem to know everything, and then some, about the speech that was supposedly censored?  That pretty much destroys the argument that violating the free speech and property rights of others is necessary due to the fact speech is being inhibited or isn't free. It shows that the market has already taken care of this non-existent issue of speech being 'silenced', it's never been louder.

This has an easy workaround which doesn't involve essentially making private companies 'arms of the government' as the article pointed out.  You should advocate for the government to create a social media site that is public, then we can let private citizens and companies enjoy their real 'free speech rights' while letting this public site actually and correctly have to adhere to the Constitution which should result in a free-for-all for speech, since the government can't discriminate by content.  There are a few rulings too about the government not being able to restrict profanity so yea, sounds like a great site.  That's a far more 'consistent' solution, but I suspect you'll have some other opposition to this idea.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 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.