All these "let's be more inclusive by focussing on what/how we can exclude" activities these days are really scary. You can't be inclusive by being exclusive.
Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
191–200 of 304 posts
Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the supremely ironic thing in this case is they are calling us the fascists while silencing us with a straight face.
Who is this 'they' you're referring to, exactly? And what opinions do you hold that would warrant this 'they' calling you fascist?
Supporting free speech over hate speech legislation for example.
Or the leigons of people who claim Trump or any one supporting him is a fascist. (I did prefer Rand Paul btw)
I also had people in /r/linux calling me a russian bot and a racist because I am against the new code of conduct.
Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
#193It's interesting that this document calls Arab Spring "the high point in positivity" of the internet. From what I understand, most countries are even worse off now. Libya in particular is still stuck in civil war to this day.
Because real centrists like google know all that Libya stuff was a right wing conspiracy theory to prevent hillary from running for president /s In all seriousness, it's quite abhorrent how foreign policy interventions by progressive leaders are shoved down the memory hole while we are always wide awake when a conservative does something.
Are you suggesting that Libya should be remembered along the same lines as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
If you're being serious you should really review the last couple decades. In what world does the intervention of Clinton and Obama equal the Bushes? Even Clinton's Iraq endeavor was downplayed by the GOP at the time as a distraction from Lewinsky.
But the real reason Libya isn't in the public's forethought is simple fact we didn't invade and rebuild the country. Its not hard to figure out why its not treated the same as Bush's wars.
Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
#194I read the whole thing, all 85 pages of it. Based on the content, and based on how I read it, I’m now almost 100% sure, not completely, but almost sure, that it is, indeed a Breirbrat News Exclusive. I think it actually says so somewhere on the pages.
Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
#195It would be good for them to be more honest and transparent, and this leak is a nice step in that direction :-)
But to be serious, something like "We take these positions and stand behind these values and we're proud of it" would seem better than claim they are a neutral platform and they welcome all points of view and let users create and share whatever content.
This didn't even have to be a leaked document. They should have posted it in their "about" section right on the front page. If anyone doesn't like it they can go and make their own Google and share content there instead.
There was the leaked company meeting video after the 2016 elections with people crying and saying "we lost" and then users are supposed to believe those executives will turn around, wipe their tears, walk back to their desks and be unbiased when it comes to moderating news, search results, Youtube videos, charities they sponsor, etc? That's probably unrealistic... So why not drop the pretense and come out and be proud of what they support. Nobody will be surprised and many will welcome it including most of their employees.
Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference between censorship and all of those things is that they aren't prior restraints. Nobody filters what you say to make sure you aren't saying something defamatory. You say it first, then someone has to take you to court, where you have the opportunity to defend yourself. And somebody has to care enough to shut you up to go through the effort of taking you to court, and then they have to win. Some kind of…
I feel like you potentially have a point but the moderation the slides talk about are also posterior to the speech. For example, tell someone to kill themselves, get reported, get shadowbanned. Deciding what is "wrong" or "uncivil" or "out of bounds" is the value judgement, like deciding defamation is or threats are.
> I feel like you potentially have a point but the moderation the slides talk about are also posterior to the speech. For example, tell someone to kill themselves, get reported, get shadowbanned.
When the penalty is censorship of future speech, it's still a prior restraint. And shadowbanning is obviously not compatible with any kind of due process or even an opportunity to know that you've been accused.
> Deciding what is "wrong" or "uncivil" or "out of bounds" is the value judgement, like deciding defamation is or threats are.
Which is why the traditional categories have been narrowly drawn and limited to things that are as apolitical and non-partisan as possible.
Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If so, then why do these conspiracies exist? Because that's how the process works. Liars lie and evidence proves them wrong. It doesn't make them disappear from existence, it just makes it so you can discover the truth. Without free speech there are no fewer lies, all you do is suppress the truth. The Party's version is the only version even when it's fiction.
Depends, these conspiracies can and do actively cause harm in the interim though (climate change, anti-vaxxing, pizzagate, and arguably others). Is liars being about to lie worth a body count?
> Is liars being about to lie worth a body count?
The body count of truth tellers not being able to tell the truth is dramatically higher.
Imagine the result if Richard Nixon had put climate scientists in the same box as you would put anti-vaxxers.
Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
#198Underpinning the whole question of censorship; “Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, tech firms have legal immunity from the majority of the content posted on their platforms (unlike ‘traditional’ media publications). This protection has empowered YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit to create spaces for free speech without the fear of legal action or its financial consequence.” Censoring content is…
This is a very lazy way to view things, considering oneself as a plattform instead of a publisher I mean. We all agree that the press by itself is free in the Western world, including the US. Sovthere is, as a direct consequence, nothing wrong with editing.
By being a platform you can basically have it both ways, compete with journalism without being journalism. And once that is causing issues you say freedom of speech and you are of the hook.
Maybe in the begining that was even true. Now, not so much anymore I guess.
Editing =|= Censorship, important to understand.
Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
If by 'harmful' speech you mean conspiracies, I would argue they've always been around. It's not a new problem. People have always filled the gaps in their knowledge with unjustified beliefs. However, your answer would be to deplatform those who would post such ideas. Do you honestly think that would make it better? Did deplatforming Alex Jones help people? It just galvanized those who believed there was a conspiracy…
Deplatforming Alex Jones gave him a slight bump in popularity after it occurred, followed by it falling off a cliff shortly after. Also in your example of responding to flat-earthers what other alternative is there when they refuse to listen to reason? When you can't engage with them on any level? Why is it my responsibility for example to be the one to engage with people who might view me as being a lesser human bei…
Could that have been because the platform people would use to see his new content was no longer able to be used for this purpose, and people have been cordoned into walled gardens so long the general public is no longer aware of alternatives?
Re: Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because a belief is civilly expressed does not make it less harmful. For example: people casually believing that the Sandy Hook shooting was a conspiracy drummed up by the government is actively harmful to the families affected by that tragedy. What do you say to those people? How do you solve that problem? And how do you define 'civil'? Because different platforms have different ranges of civility as well.
It's not the belief that is harmful per se. It would be the harassment of those affected that is harmful. To give an alternative conspiracy that was given a lot of oxygen, many believed that Bush caused 9/11. Conspiracies themselves are often wrong, but occasionally correct. I don't believe that one was correct, but for example, Edward Snowden's NSA revelations were initially derided as conspiracy. It's important tha…
...would you believe Bush didn't cause, but closer to "accidentally allowed", 9/11?