Why censorship is practiced on social media.

[+Link of Hyrule]

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The town square is still there though. 

And that fact is irrelevant! 

 

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You should advocate for the government to create a social media site that is public, 

Who will run it, pay for it, and moderate it? I'm not against the idea per se,  but it's a bit hard to make a public company for a global product. What country will register the domain,  will it be governed by Australian law or UK law or US law or Saudi law? 

For the rest of your post,  I've nothing to say the hasn't already been said in this thread,  so anything i say will just be repeating myself so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the rest. 

Edited March 14, 2024 by Paranoid Android

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

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

This is a real problem with libertarian free speech advocates fighting to offer the greatest advantage to the worst people. 

Extreme right wingers, Nazis and every flavour of bigot benefits from the ideology whilst the average person is just considered a road block to this pathway to anarchy. 

They don't accept the rights of the community and put the individual above. It's blamed on an unfounded ideology of government oppression to placate the opposition. It seems to be more for people who wish to break the law. 

Libertarian ideology is bad for community in general. It's little wonder it's a minority movement. As far as I can tell it's the product of an abnormal fear of authority. 

 

I wonder if right wingers realise there not as many right wing news sources because where they do exist they are utter garbage. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

And that fact is irrelevant! 

It is when your argument depends on the idea that speech is being silenced, which it's clearly not.  When there was no internet people had free speech rights, you agree?  We didn't force book publishers, newspapers, magazines, etc, just because they were different avenues for speech than the town square, to unwillingly publish things they do not want.  And yet almost no one was making this speech 'argument' that just because you can't use every or your preferred medium for your speech (other people's property) to say whatever you want that it's an issue.

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Who will run it, pay for it, and moderate it? I'm not against the idea per se,  but it's a bit hard to make a public company for a global product. What country will register the domain,  will it be governed by Australian law or UK law or US law or Saudi law? 

For that matter, what makes something a 'social media site'?  Any site that allows comments? What defines a 'niche site', a category you offered up so that UM can have its current 'censorious' moderating policies (using your definition) but you can have your legislation to force other companies who don't allow comments you want to essentially do the government's bidding.  Are we going to enforce this against say religious sites who want to have comments just about their religion without atheists coming in to debate things?  I think Meta/FB allows setting up of smaller groups, like gaming or knitting or even progressively left groups or whatever, they don't get to moderate either if someone wants to come in and talk about their right wing views?  These should all be 'problems' too since people not being able to post wherever they want today is somehow violating "free speech".  If you just want to single out political speech then we have the task of what that constitutes, which gets real messy in situations like I've discussed when the right wing for example embraces anti-vax junk disproportionately (currently); are anti-vax posts about politics or science?

I usually try to understand where a position is coming from and what it's based on even/especially if I don't agree with it, but I really don't even see a problem here.  I don't even know how to engage with whatever point you are making/suggesting that it's 'a problem' if prospective site owners can't have access to the cheapest alternative, that is just bizarre to me and seems to involve some ignorance about how businesses and markets operate, and why.  Since you like to second-guess and pretend you can determine the real motives of these site owners when they say things like they don't want to host sites that encourage violence, I have little doubt that if this were not right wing comments/sites being refused that you wouldn't think this is a problem, and maybe miraculously discover the speech rights of those private owners that you seem to want to violate by using the power of the government.  Mainly you have an odd definition of what free speech rights actually entail, and are hypocritically not very consistent about what sites should be targeted by legislation. 

[Edumakated]

46 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It is when your argument depends on the idea that speech is being silenced, which it's clearly not.  When there was no internet people had free speech rights, you agree?  We didn't force book publishers, newspapers, magazines, etc, just because they were different avenues for speech than the town square, to unwillingly publish things they do not want.  And yet almost no one was making this speech 'argument' that just because you can't use every or your preferred medium for your speech (other people's property) to say whatever you want that it's an issue.

For that matter, what makes something a 'social media site'?  Any site that allows comments? What defines a 'niche site', a category you offered up so that UM can have its current 'censorious' moderating policies (using your definition) but you can have your legislation to force other companies who don't allow comments you want to essentially do the government's bidding.  Are we going to enforce this against say religious sites who want to have comments just about their religion without atheists coming in to debate things?  I think Meta/FB allows setting up of smaller groups, like gaming or knitting or even progressively left groups or whatever, they don't get to moderate either if someone wants to come in and talk about their right wing views?  These should all be 'problems' too since people not being able to post wherever they want today is somehow violating "free speech".  If you just want to single out political speech then we have the task of what that constitutes, which gets real messy in situations like I've discussed when the right wing for example embraces anti-vax junk disproportionately (currently); are anti-vax posts about politics or science?

I usually try to understand where a position is coming from and what it's based on even/especially if I don't agree with it, but I really don't even see a problem here.  I don't even know how to engage with whatever point you are making/suggesting that it's 'a problem' if prospective site owners can't have access to the cheapest alternative, that is just bizarre to me and seems to involve some ignorance about how businesses and markets operate, and why.  Since you like to second-guess and pretend you can determine the real motives of these site owners when they say things like they don't want to host sites that encourage violence, I have little doubt that if this were not right wing comments/sites being refused that you wouldn't think this is a problem, and maybe miraculously discover the speech rights of those private owners that you seem to want to violate by using the power of the government.  Mainly you have an odd definition of what free speech rights actually entail, and are hypocritically not very consistent about what sites should be targeted by legislation. 

Your ability to deny reality is impressive.

Prior to the internet becoming widely available to the general public, there was no need to censor because niche ideas were not widely disseminated to the public.  So while there were always alternative viewpoints, it took far more effort to find them.  It was far easier to manipulate the public because the sources of information were far more controlled.  Most people would only get news and info from the three main new channels (ABC, NBC, CBS) and maybe their local newspaper.

With the internet, it is much harder to control information decimation.  As such, it becomes almost impossible to control a narrative.  

No one is arguing about whether some knitting group has the right to kick out someone talking politics.  Of course, they can.  The argument is whether sites that claim to allow politics can censor someone for politics they don't like.

In addition, these major sites have unprecedented market share so their suppression is far more impactful.  Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the censorship pretty much goes in one ideological direction.  We see if on Facebook, Youtube, comment sections on newspapers, etc.  Case study after case study even when it is shown the information is accurate.  If you didn't notice it didn't c19, then you are hopeless.

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

This is a real problem with libertarian free speech advocates fighting to offer the greatest advantage to the worst people. 

Extreme right wingers, Nazis and every flavour of bigot benefits from the ideology whilst the average person is just considered a road block to this pathway to anarchy. 

They don't accept the rights of the community and put the individual above. It's blamed on an unfounded ideology of government oppression to placate the opposition. It seems to be more for people who wish to break the law. 

To be fair I don't think the people I've at least debated about this here are taking an actual libertarian position on this.  The article I posted earlier is more in line with the libertarian position and I actually agree with the arguments there, they seem very sensible to me.  I disagree with libertarians I think more concerning their occasional absolutism concerning economic issues like taxation and such, but tend to agree with them on more social issues at least as far as principle (victimless crimes like prostitution should be legal, etc).  PA is not taking a libertarian position here, he wants legislation that clearly reduces the liberty of private owners to exercise their own speech freely.  At least in the US and I thought most everywhere, I'm pretty sure 'free speech' even as a principle has never meant we are free to commandeer someone else's property for our speech, and it's definitely not been a 'right' here except in some unique monopolistic instances, which is not the current situation with web hosting, ISP assignment, or social media sites as a whole.

If someone wants to put up a Nazi flag and blab away about it on a street or in a public park, I don't think they should be arrested just based necessarily on the content (as long as it doesn't include threats).  Have at it, and prepare for other non-Nazis to use their free speech rights to get their Nazi butts cancelled.  No one's free speech rights are being violated by private owners using editorial discretion concerning what their property is used for; private owners' free speech rights are being violated by forcing them to convey messages with their property that they do not want to.  Everyone understands this in the scenario where it's their property that is being used against their wishes, and even in hypotheticals with the vast majority of other businesses.  Again, "double standards".

[+Liquid Gardens]

20 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

Your ability to deny reality is impressive.

My ability to deny your reality is easy.

22 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

Prior to the internet becoming widely available to the general public, there was no need to censor because niche ideas were not widely disseminated to the public.  So while there were always alternative viewpoints, it took far more effort to find them.  It was far easier to manipulate the public because the sources of information were far more controlled.  Most people would only get news and info from the three main new channels (ABC, NBC, CBS) and maybe their local newspaper.

With the internet, it is much harder to control information decimation.  As such, it becomes almost impossible to control a narrative.  

"Dissemination", not 'decimation'.  The above makes no sense it sounds like you agree with me that 'censoring' may be desired, since today there is no 'controlling the narrative'.

25 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

No one is arguing about whether some knitting group has the right to kick out someone talking politics.  Of course, they can. 

Why?  Be specific with your reasons, so we can figure out why the same reasons why 'of course they can' doesn't apply to other companies or sites.  

27 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

In addition, these major sites have unprecedented market share so their suppression is far more impactful.

Of course major sites have a large market share (which is literally not 'unprecedented'), that's what makes them 'major'.  

30 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the censorship pretty much goes in one ideological direction.  We see if on Facebook, Youtube, comment sections on newspapers, etc. 

Anyone who has been paying attention, or anyone who mainly gets their information from biased right wing sources?  I've already had this conversation about 'ideological direction' and beliefs that it is significantly more in one direction than the other.  Feel free to disagree with something I said there, questions I would have would be how you have determined that 'censorship' is being done because of the ideological direction instead of for other reasons, and how you have determined that a comment that was censored is equivalent to some other comment that was not.

32 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

Case study after case study even when it is shown the information is accurate.

Great, then you should have no issue with providing a link to these case studies which was one of the first things I requested in my conversations here.

[+OverSword]

39 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

To be fair I don't think the people I've at least debated about this here are taking an actual libertarian position on this.  The article I posted earlier is more in line with the libertarian position and I actually agree with the arguments there, they seem very sensible to me.

That's because he doesn't actually have a clue as to what Libertarianism is.  He confuses it with anarchism judging by our past discussions on the subject.  Or he thinks we're all Ayn Rand, who is an extremist.

Edited March 14, 2024 by OverSword

[Golden Duck]

5 hours ago, Edumakated said:

With the internet, it is much harder to control information decimation

Freudian slip? 

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

To be fair I don't think the people I've at least debated about this here are taking an actual libertarian position on this.  The article I posted earlier is more in line with the libertarian position and I actually agree with the arguments there, they seem very sensible to me.  I disagree with libertarians I think more concerning their occasional absolutism concerning economic issues like taxation and such, but tend to agree with them on more social issues at least as far as principle (victimless crimes like prostitution should be legal, etc).  PA is not taking a libertarian position here, he wants legislation that clearly reduces the liberty of private owners to exercise their own speech freely.  At least in the US and I thought most everywhere, I'm pretty sure 'free speech' even as a principle has never meant we are free to commandeer someone else's property for our speech, and it's definitely not been a 'right' here except in some unique monopolistic instances, which is not the current situation with web hosting, ISP assignment, or social media sites as a whole.

Ive not read your linked article, I'll have to go back and read it. Apologies, I'd jumped in on the comment I saw. 

Isn't it just another type of libertarian ideology replacing government with big business? As noted, free speech already exists here. 

Victimless crimes are open to interpretation is the problem. I don't think it's a purely libertarian thing at all, but where the line is drawn is. The libertarian view I find here boundless enough to be of more use to nefarious circumstances. Sure, in some cultures prostituting is accepted, but corruption isn't. The libertarian ideology conflates both as equal. 

10 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If someone wants to put up a Nazi flag and blab away about it on a street or in a public park, I don't think they should be arrested just based necessarily on the content (as long as it doesn't include threats).  Have at it, and prepare for other non-Nazis to use their free speech rights to get their Nazi butts cancelled.  No one's free speech rights are being violated by private owners using editorial discretion concerning what their property is used for; private owners' free speech rights are being violated by forcing them to convey messages with their property that they do not want to.  Everyone understands this in the scenario where it's their property that is being used against their wishes, and even in hypotheticals with the vast majority of other businesses.  Again, "double standards".

But what aspect of Nazi ideology is not hate speech? It's core principles embrace White supremacism and genocide of the Jewish race. If these principles are acted upon, there's no doubt that they would violate many laws, as such, I can't see how, endearing those views is not hate speech. Isn't it the right of the community to refuse hate entry into the community? 

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, OverSword said:

That's because he doesn't actually have a clue as to what Libertarianism is.  He confuses it with anarchism judging by our past discussions on the subject.  Or he thinks we're all Ayn Rand, who is an extremist.

You enable anarchism whilst verbally distancing from it. 

And your government paranoia is exceptional. Exceptional alarmism. Very chicken little of you. 

The only people your ideology benefits are bad people. 

[+OverSword]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You enable anarchism whilst verbally distancing from it. 

And your government paranoia is exceptional. Exceptional alarmism. Very chicken little of you. 

The only people your ideology benefits are bad people. 

Yeah, because good people never say controversial things on the internet.  If they do then they are by definition bad people. You on the other hand would be the first one to throw a torch on the wood at the base of the stake in the other hand shaking your pitchfork at the sky if someone violated the sacred cow of the moment.

Edited March 15, 2024 by OverSword

[Doug1066]

On 3/14/2024 at 8:49 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

It is when your argument depends on the idea that speech is being silenced, which it's clearly not.  When there was no internet people had free speech rights, you agree?  We didn't force book publishers, newspapers, magazines, etc, just because they were different avenues for speech than the town square, to unwillingly publish things they do not want.  And yet almost no one was making this speech 'argument' that just because you can't use every or your preferred medium for your speech (other people's property) to say whatever you want that it's an issue.

FYI:  Print and broadcast media are responsible for what they publish, regardless of the author's politics.  They can be sued for libel even if they publish a disclaimer.  Why not apply the same principle to the internet?

Doug

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

FYI:  Print and broadcast media are responsible for what they publish, regardless of the author's politics.  They can be sued for libel even if they publish a disclaimer.  Why not apply the same principle to the internet?

Doug

That has been suggested and the big tech sites like Twitter and Facebook claimed they are not publishers.

[Doug1066]

35 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That has been suggested and the big tech sites like Twitter and Facebook claimed they are not publishers.

The idea has yet to be tested in court.  Let's prosecute one and see what the courts say.

Doug

Edited March 15, 2024 by Doug1066

[+OverSword]

20 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

The idea has yet to be tested in court.  Let's prosecute one and see what the courts say.

Doug

Big tech would likely win due to the agreement clicked on by every user when they sign up as members.

[Doug1066]

42 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Big tech would likely win due to the agreement clicked on by every user when they sign up as members.

That's called the "right of contract" and is not universal.  The courts occasionally find exceptions.

We need to limit the power of corporations, anyway.  This might be a good place to start.

Doug

Edited March 15, 2024 by Doug1066

[+Liquid Gardens]

8 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

FYI:  Print and broadcast media are responsible for what they publish, regardless of the author's politics.  They can be sued for libel even if they publish a disclaimer.  Why not apply the same principle to the internet?

Doug

Okay, I'm just not sure what that has to do with what you quoted from me, my comments concern private companies being forced to publish what they may not want to, the fact that they can be sued for some things just supports that they retain that freedom.  They are responsible for what they publish if it libels someone, that is a rather narrow slice of internet comments.  If you want to sell books on how science supposedly shows that certain races are cognitively inferior, you can buy those right now on Amazon so there's already considerable latitude.  Should Amazon, or you, be forced to sell those books if they don't want to?  I don't think so, that stomps on a bunch of rights of a private company and its owners.  Plus you throw enough 'in my opinion's around and I think it does become harder to prosecute.

Besides, is that even how you want the internet to work?  You try to leave a comment and it's delayed so that the moderators can review it and try to ensure it's not false before publishing it?  Why would a site bother with allowing comments at all, if you thnk the same principle should be applied to the internet.

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 3/14/2024 at 10:08 PM, psyche101 said:

Isn't it just another type of libertarian ideology replacing government with big business? As noted, free speech already exists here. 

I guess I didn't intepret the situation in the article that way. It is about cases where Texas and Florida (shocker...) have laws that essentially try to remove the right of private social media sites of certain sizes to 'censor' comments that are made by users, they would have to allow things to be posted on their site that they don't want to have posted.  Only the government can violate your free speech rights, not really private people or companies, to me this seems a very basic principle and I don't know how it can work any other way.

On 3/14/2024 at 10:08 PM, psyche101 said:

Sure, in some cultures prostituting is accepted, but corruption isn't. The libertarian ideology conflates both as equal. 

I'm not really a libertarian so not well versed in the particulars of their philosophy but I don't think libertarianism conflates prostitution as corruption, I think they say that the main harms of prostitution comes from it being needlessly illegal.  It is pretty silly if you think about it; you can transact with anyone concerning almost any other service, you can sleep with someone totally legally for the most part as long as no money changes hands, it's weird then to say the combination of these two legal things is illegal.

On 3/14/2024 at 10:08 PM, psyche101 said:

f these principles are acted upon, there's no doubt that they would violate many laws, as such, I can't see how, endearing those views is not hate speech. Isn't it the right of the community to refuse hate entry into the community? 

That's a tough one; is it the right of the community to do anything it wants as long as most of the community supports it?  To me you've detailed where the line is crossed, "if these principles are acted on"; if we tried to forbid any speech that is or could be acted on we wouldn't have too much speech.  I don't personally have an issue with incitements to violence for example not being fully protected as free speech. 

[Dejarma]

On 2/26/2024 at 7:31 PM, Doug1066 said:

What about censoring pornography?  That's not an easy question.  It doesn't seem like there's any harm in looking at pictures, even ones showing penetration (defined as obscene by the Supreme Court).  BUT:  a lot of men get the wrong idea about what women should be while viewing pornography and they aren't willing to settle for a truly liberated woman.

utter bollox!!! No, not a lot= a VERY small minority! Where do you get your info from?

[Doug1066]

14 hours ago, Dejarma said:

utter bollox!!! No, not a lot= a VERY small minority! Where do you get your info from?

Lot.  Some.  A very small minority.  Take your pick.

There are enough to support web sites that offer Thai, Philippina and Mexican women for sale.

Doug

[Doug1066]

23 hours ago, OverSword said:

That has been suggested and the big tech sites like Twitter and Facebook claimed they are not publishers.

That's for the courts to decide.

Doug

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

That's for the courts to decide.

Doug

Like case law on s230?

[psyche101]

On 3/16/2024 at 1:26 AM, OverSword said:

Yeah, because good people never say controversial things on the internet.  If they do then they are by definition bad people.

If they violate the proposed legislation then yes they are. 

That's what the legislation proposes to specifically target. Bad people. 

On 3/16/2024 at 1:26 AM, OverSword said:

You on the other hand would be the first one to throw a torch on the wood at the base of the stake in the other hand shaking your pitchfork at the sky if someone violated the sacred cow of the moment.

That doesn't even make sense. 

Your insurance to protect the worst people in society should have you on a watchlist. Your ideology is a danger to others. Twisted groups like Scientology and cults like heavens gate share that justification of their ideology in order to veil the harmful aspects of that ideology. Your overreacting is just another way to express that justification whilst ignoring those you enable. Justice is every bit as important as free speech, not that I believe for a second that you are actually protecting free speech but offering a way for hate to surface.

You have also said you get off on petty arguments. It seems part of your nature to be a difficult member of the community. I suspect that appeals to you. 

Edited March 18, 2024 by psyche101

[+OverSword]

11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

If they violate the proposed legislation then yes they are. 

That's what the legislation proposes to specifically target. Bad people. 

That doesn't even make sense. 

Your insurance to protect the worst people in society should have you on a watchlist. Your ideology is a danger to others. Twisted groups like Scientology and cults like heavens gate share that justification of their ideology in order to veil the harmful aspects of that ideology. Your overreacting is just another way to express that justification whilst ignoring those you enable. Justice is every bit as important as free speech, not that I believe for a second that you are actually protecting free speech but offering a way for hate to surface.

You have also said you get off on petty arguments. It seems part of your nature to be a difficult member of the community. I suspect that appeals to you. 

Yes my ideology will destroy the world 😀 you’re ridiculous. My ideology to not unnecessarily impede legal free speech and ensure people have the right to express ideas, even objectionable ideas is the keystone to liberty and freedom. Limit speech and limit ideas.  My favorite thing about this Canadian bill is where they are willing to pay informers to report offensive posts . That’s what the police did in East Germany. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Yes my ideology will destroy the world 😀 you’re ridiculous.

It's not making it a better place. It's a blight on the world. 

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

My ideology to not unnecessarily impede legal free speech and ensure people have the right to express ideas, even objectionable ideas is the keystone to liberty and freedom.

No it's not. Your ideology offers greater protection to those who would misuse freedom. Your ideology infringes the freedoms of a community to live peacefully. 

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Limit speech and limit ideas.  

The speech and ideas being limited are specifically hate speech, stalkers pedos and the like. 

That is the speech you are fighting for. 

And that's why your ideology is also harmful and why you should be on a watchlist.

It's known to be prevalent. Why you wish to make it more so is hidden in your agenda.

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

My favorite thing about this Canadian bill is where they are willing to pay informers to report offensive posts . That’s what the police did in East Germany. 

Did they? Did the police in East Germany target pathetic individuals who intentionally go after women and children and did they get many? 

Do you think people should protect those scum bags do you? That all you are really accomplishing with your half measures. It's not admirable. 

Using fear tactics to protect the worst elements of society I think makes you and your agenda even more transparent. Unless your doing the wrong thing, you have nothing to worry about, so one wonders what you are worried about, not what you say you are worried about, what you are really worried about. 

Edited March 18, 2024 by psyche101