231–240 of 261 posts
See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t that the crux of the issue? A lot of egregious hate speech — say, what Richard Spencer said in the recently leaked audio — is agreed upon by everyone but racists. But every time someone suggests censoring that, people invoke the same slippery slope fallacy. Today it’s the spam that gets censored, tomorrow it’s your voice!
Because the criteria for deciding what speech gets censored is always subjective. Sure, we can probably find one statement that most contemporary people would agree is wrong and shouldn't be allowed to be said. Like 99.99% of contemporary people. But what percentage do we cut it off at? 75%? 30%? And why is it a popular vote to begin with? Is morality or ethics something that is relative to popular ideas or are there…
The problem that arises when you define censorship broadly is that the opposite of censorship is censorship. If no one can restrict what gets published in their venues then as soon as a venue starts discussing stuff I don't like, I can spin up a shill call center or a guy with a thousand accounts and a copy of GPT2 and flood that venue with so much divisive moronicism that the voices that threaten me will be almost c…
We can't have censorship free platforms because someone might spin up a thousand accounts. We need the NSA to monitor all communications because terrorists use the Internet. We should arrest 12-year olds for making finger guns because of school shooters.
But in this case as in so many, it's an off-topic argument, merely a distraction or an excuse for overreaching authority. No one here is arguing that someone who makes a thousand accounts shouldn't be restrained; that's simply not the topic under discussion, even if the word "censorship" can be stretched to include that topic.
The problem that arises when you define censorship broadly is that the opposite of censorship is censorship. If no one can restrict what gets published in their venues then as soon as a venue starts discussing stuff I don't like, I can spin up a shill call center or a guy with a thousand accounts and a copy of GPT2 and flood that venue with so much divisive moronicism that the voices that threaten me will be almost c…
This is a rather common style of argument often used against civil rights: every person's civil rights should be restrained because criminals abuse those rights. We can't have censorship free platforms because someone might spin up a thousand accounts. We need the NSA to monitor all communications because terrorists use the Internet. We should arrest 12-year olds for making finger guns because of school shooters. But…
In my opinion, yes, but I'd like to know what you think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Power comes with responsibility, not freedom. Where did you even get that phrase? And, does this imply that slavery comes with blissfull carelessness?
Freedom is the ability to make choices, which means having the power to choose. Great power is a great freedom in choices- and of course that freedom comes with a responsibility- you made choices, you are responsible for them. And yes, if you have no freedom you cannot be considered responsible for what you do or don't. A slave cannot be held responsible for actions he's been ordered to perform. This might not be "bl…
The problem that arises when you define censorship broadly is that the opposite of censorship is censorship. If no one can restrict what gets published in their venues then as soon as a venue starts discussing stuff I don't like, I can spin up a shill call center or a guy with a thousand accounts and a copy of GPT2 and flood that venue with so much divisive moronicism that the voices that threaten me will be almost c…
This is a rather common style of argument often used against civil rights: every person's civil rights should be restrained because criminals abuse those rights. We can't have censorship free platforms because someone might spin up a thousand accounts. We need the NSA to monitor all communications because terrorists use the Internet. We should arrest 12-year olds for making finger guns because of school shooters. But…
There are largely uncensored forums, like 4chan. That's actually what you get when you go there rather than having something that is heavily moderated but only in ways that you agree with, where you then pretend it isn't moderated.
And in fact, I'll fully support you having your own platform which is as uncensored as you want it to be. I wish you the best of luck.
What I don't support is you arguing that other people can't have their own platforms which restrict publication on their own platform however they see fit, including ways that you or I might disagree with.
People arguing that private parties can't limit the material posted on their own property are absolutely taking a position which is contrary to free speech. The power to exclude is just as important, if not more important, than the power to include.
If you'd like to argue that the dominance of a few platforms violates my assumptions and changes the tradeoffs, I'm not sure I'd disagree. But I think we should instead worry about fixing the monopoly problems rather than limiting private parties ability to exclude speech they disagree with on their own properties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that there will always be an influx of new people; and that most people will not be familiar with previous discussions, I'm not convinced that most forums are being assaulted by bad actors. This seems to be more of a Eternal September problem. Of course bad actors can abuse this; though I've always felt it would be good for the derailing comments to be removed with a polite dm message explaining that the topic…
It's definitely an organized tactic among some groups. For example, there's a literal neo-Nazi handbook† that advises members of that group to disguise their sentiments in civility and/or 'jokes' in order to sneak it into mainstream discussion. † https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/19/neo-na...
I have a wide view of what 'censorship' is, and I include spam filtering in the definition. For example, a while ago I saw an advert for some kind of erection-causing pill on a forum discussing C++. If the forum moderators remove such a post, they make the forum more efficient by saving other users (who are looking for C++ content) from themselves having to filter out irrelevant information / a sales pitch. I also se…
Here’s the thing. On dedicated forums we know the protocol. We don’t want spam and we don’t want politics. If it’s a political forum we expect all civil exchanges to be treated equally. So a proponent for Owls and a proponent for sawmills both get their say and one doesn’t get “deranked” or de-monetized because it’s not the popular opinion or the au currant opinion. We don’t expect one political candidate to be artif…
"I give a Catholic school leeway censor its students or professors to have a Catholic bias. It's on the label.
"It's another thing for USC to censor on a political left or right bias, without disclaiming such bias, or even professing a lack of bias. It's simply a dishonest influence on speech."