171–180 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can say shit on the internet...
Shit, I didn't know that! Serious face back on. Have you ever seen a concise word for algorithmicly-drowning-people-in-shit-on-social-media-because-profit?
Just to make sure I understand this — the argument is that in order to combat authoritarianism, Silicon Valley companies should censor more content?
that may not have been implied by the advocates, but that's always the take of NPR, as the mouth of the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet oddly, the entire Twitter thread that agrees with Gaea Opines, and presumably their politics, hasn't been banned. Gaea Opines, themselves, hasn't been banned. Other Instagram posts and comments more extreme than that one haven't been banned. Other Twitter comments more extreme than that one haven't been banned. One removed comment does not an all-encompassing, democracy threatening conspiracy against a specif…
Then you theory is exceptionally hard to disprove, as someone would have to come up with a huge number of individual examples to have "statistical significance". There are also a few websites, whose entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger. It was discussed here previously. thedonald.win is a political example of such censorship. I think The Pirate Bay links are banned in Facebook itself.
It isn't my theory. The right claims the entirety of social media has been engaged in an orchestrated conspiracy to purge non-leftist speech from their platforms in favor of pushing a radical socialist agenda for years, and that this is so widespread that it threatens democracy itself. Yes, you would need to come up with a statistically significant number of examples to prove that claim. But if it's true, it should actually be easy to prove, if not impossible to deny.
Anecdotally, I haven't seen any sign of a decrease in right-wing speech on social media. At all. If anything, it's spread to places where it didn't even really exist before, like Youtube comments and this very forum, and it's thriving on the very platforms it's supposed to be banned from. And I can find accounts of leftist, Black and LGBT accounts being banned, algorithmically suppressed or arbitrarily demonetized, which runs counter to the narrative.
I stand by my comment. The vast left-wing media conspiracy isn't a thing. It's propaganda. It's lifestyle branding.
>There are also a few websites, whose entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger. It was discussed here previously. thedonald.win is a political example of such censorship. I think The Pirate Bay links are banned in Facebook itself.
And I'd bet dollars to donuts something other than mere political speech was involved in each case. I can think of reasons why Facebook wouldn't want links to pirated software on its platform other than political bias, for instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how arguing that how bad yellow journalism was in the past is an argument for continuing it now. Seems a bit like saying 'slavery was bad before, so discrimination is ok now'. Both are unacceptable in sustainable society. Perhaps a particular case was overturned, but the principle still rings true. Or, are you saying that it should really be OK for people to deliberately make verbal actions that directly…
The point of bringing up Schenck is that reasonable ideas can be and have been used to justify great wrongs, and thus that we shouldn’t rush into action whenever we see a problem, even if there’s a principle that rings true. “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.” What killed the yellow journalism of the past? Was it added restrictions on speech? Or was it something else that we could c…
We could consider editorial responsibility - responsibility for what you amplify. The Fairness doctrine did a not bad job while it lasted.
Edit:
I also notice everyone arguing about Shenk, and no one brings up that some speech is still illegal, e.g., incitement to riot, sedition, and a few others.
The point of the example was that nothing is absolute, or should be absolute, even freedom of speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Refraining from wildly amplifying is not censorship
It is censorship by definition. The question here is if this form of censorship is currently permitted or not permitted by law, and if it should or should not be permitted by law.
When a newspaper editor decides a story has insufficient credible sources, or lacks any of a variety of qualities that constitute good and responsible journalism, and so does not publish or broadcast it today, that is an editorial decision, it is not censorship.
When an algorithm or human decides that a story has the same qualities, or that it has insufficient 'engagement metrics', and refrains from amplifying it across millions of accounts, that is also not censorship.
By your definition, if I post something and it doesn't make good 'engagement' metrics and FB/Google/YouTube doesn't promote it, that's censorship — Nonsense— it is an editorial decision. And, restricting or boosting amplification based on a metric of sourcing, value, truth, moral compass, is also an editorial decision.
These decisions are already being made thousands of times per second. It is past time that the deciders become responsible for their decisions.
Like Glenn Greenwald said:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1434854149087182848
>>The entire "anti-disinformation"/"anti-extremism" industry is a gigantic fraud, funded by the same tiny handful of billionaires, governments and NGOs: a scam to control discourse while feigning neutral, non-ideological goals to battle "disinformation":
My personal experience with Facebook's anti-disinformation campaign:
This issue is so complicated. Yellow journalism existed in the 1920s. It's nothing new. There will always be people that want to consume these materials and believe them. The alarming thing are the calls for censorship. Look at how bad the media and platforms have been about Covid. Early advice on masking, lab leak, adipose inflammation, and other fairly innocuous lines of research were censored. Imagine centrally pu…
How much of that was people passing those things off as fact, when there wasn't the evidence to back them up? The problem is, everyone thinks they've become an epidemiologist and virologist over the last 18 months, people jump onto pre-prints that haven't been peer reviewed to push whatever narrative they want - some of the trials that claimed to show Ivermectin as a wonder drug were plagued with badly designed trial…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you theory is exceptionally hard to disprove, as someone would have to come up with a huge number of individual examples to have "statistical significance". There are also a few websites, whose entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger. It was discussed here previously. thedonald.win is a political example of such censorship. I think The Pirate Bay links are banned in Facebook itself.
>Then you theory is exceptionally hard to disprove, as someone would have to come up with a huge number of individual examples to have "statistical significance". It isn't my theory. The right claims the entirety of social media has been engaged in an orchestrated conspiracy to purge non-leftist speech from their platforms in favor of pushing a radical socialist agenda for years, and that this is so widespread that i…
not an argument
if what youre saying were true, then uncensored forums would look like twitter. but obviously they look like the exact opposite. uncensored forums are full of right wing shit because it’s not allowed on twitter. obviously