Censorship

knapplc said:
This isn't supported by anything other than your opinion.

Pruning trees of dead branches causes new branches to grow. This is the way of the world, and has been since neanderthals crawled out of the primordial soup to create calzones.

What you're questioning is who chooses what to prune. That pruning is considered benevolent guidance or outrageous overstep depending on who's doing the pruning and what's being pruned.

The question you're asking is as important as the pruning. And while I think pruning is at times a necessary step, I think ***at all times*** your question is not just necessary, but vital.
Click to expand...


Good toast

tenor.gif


 
Cdog923 said:
Private companies like Twitter and Facebook are fully within their rights to dictate what is and isn't allowed to be posted to their websites. Is this news to you?
Click to expand...
Under current law, but that could/will change. 

JJ Husker said:
I agree that corporations making these decisions is not ideal. As we've seen they aren't perfect or blameless. Don't forget, it has been their services responsible for the dissemination of the majority of the disinformation we are concerned about.

I'm curious, what other solutions do you suggest that would not involve social media being proactive in preventing people from spreading lies, falsehoods and disinformation through their services?

And I'm sorry but I disagree about calling this censorship, at least the type that carries a negative connotation. IMO this is not in the same realm as book burning. If they don't stop it or prevent it, who can or will? I don't think allowing it to flourish and continue is a viable option.

George Orwell warned us about this.

We're already seeing the Trump administration's version of the  Ministry of Truth. If there is anyone I trust less than corporations, it would be our government.

So how do we fix it?
Click to expand...
1 what are you talking about?  The media is 99% liberal and will publish anything anti-Trump and he can do nothing about it. 

2 You make the Tech companies liable for discrimination against political opinions.  And it won't cost the taxpayers a dime because the ambulance chasers will become censorship chasers overnight. 

 
chamrocck said:
Ask yourself this...if the story was about Trump's son would tech and other media have censored it?  If you answered yes, I have a bridge to sell you.  
Click to expand...
Ask yourself this, has any major story about the Trumps been proven false? Has any story attacked the kids for substance abuse or other very personal problems? Has any story come from people in their opposition's campaign who continually push disproven conspiracies?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
chamrocck said:
If there is, sure bring me and the public the emails and photos.  I have no partisan bone to pick.  
Click to expand...
Dude, go look. They're EVERYWHERE. It's more than documented that they are corrupt frauds. Charities have been shutdown, lawsuites won over their fake University, shady timing of Ivanka's Chinese patents, Trump using bankruptcy not to pay contractors, Multiple people are now felons because of his campaign, the kids who work for the Whitehouse using personal email servers just like Hillary. It goes on and on and on.

 
JJ Husker said:
I agree that corporations making these decisions is not ideal. As we've seen they aren't perfect or blameless. Don't forget, it has been their services responsible for the dissemination of the majority of the disinformation we are concerned about.

I'm curious, what other solutions do you suggest that would not involve social media being proactive in preventing people from spreading lies, falsehoods and disinformation through their services?
Click to expand...
I'd start by having Twitter, Facebook, etc. flag content that has factually untrue material and show content that has the facts or refutes the false content. The way to overcome disinformation is with correct information. It'll never be 100% effective, but it's far better than doing nothing and IMO is much less ripe for abuse than censorship.

Another tactic is to demonetize or otherwise remove the financial incentive of disinformation. YouTube has been doing this to mixed response thus far. This isn't censorship in that it does not prevent the information from getting out, but it does remove the incentive for sources to lie in order to make money.

A lot of the issue with disinformation is not just that it exists, but that it's being pushed by coordinated efforts. A way to combat this is to take a hard stance against bots and people having multiple accounts on sites like Twitter and Facebook. It's not an easy problem to solve but suspending or banning people (or IP addresses) when bots or multiple accounts are detected is another deterrent.

And I'm sorry but I disagree about calling this censorship, at least the type that carries a negative connotation. IMO this is not in the same realm as book burning. If they don't stop it or prevent it, who can or will? I don't think allowing it to flourish and continue is a viable option.
Click to expand...
It's not at all in the same realm as book burning, but it is censorship whether you like the connotations or not. And to be clear, I'm not saying all censorship is bad. For example, exceptions to the 1st Amendment like yelling "fire" in a crowded place or inciting violence are not protected speech and can be censored by the government.

knapplc said:
This isn't supported by anything other than your opinion.
Click to expand...
As in many things that are complex interactions among people, there's no way to prove that my view is better in all cases. But also means that you can't prove that censorship will be better in all case either. It's a gray area that requires debate and consideration.

But it's not just me that has that opinion:

https://reason.com/2019/05/13/fake-news-is-a-really-dangerous-excuse-for-censorship/

Look into the Streissand Effect for why censorship can be counter-productive. For example, the current NY Post nonsense was barely a story until Twitter banned links to it.

Here's a good deep dive into the current state of disinformation by the conservative Brookings Institute including a bunch of ways to deal with disinformation:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-combat-fake-news-and-disinformation/

Pruning trees of dead branches causes new branches to grow. This is the way of the world, and has been since neanderthals crawled out of the primordial soup to create calzones.

What you're questioning is who chooses what to prune. That pruning is considered benevolent guidance or outrageous overstep depending on who's doing the pruning and what's being pruned.

The question you're asking is as important as the pruning. And while I think pruning is at times a necessary step, I think ***at all times*** your question is not just necessary, but vital.
Click to expand...
I agree. "Who watches the watchers" is perhaps the most important aspect of any system with checks and balances.

 
RedDenver said:
As in many things that are complex interactions among people, there's no way to prove that my view is better in all cases. But also means that you can't prove that censorship will be better in all case either. It's a gray area that requires debate and consideration.
Click to expand...


It doesn't have to be better in all cases to be useful. It has to be useful in the right circumstance to be useful.

 
knapplc said:
It doesn't have to be better in all cases to be useful. It has to be useful in the right circumstance to be useful.
Click to expand...
I agree. Plus it has to be not worse in other circumstances than it's benefits in the right circumstances.

For example, imagine Koch or Adelson got control of Twitter and made the decisions on what's censored as "disinformation" and what isn't, then does that make things better or worse? Now consider one of those people got control of Twitter but there was no selective censorship.

 
RedDenver said:
I'd start by having Twitter, Facebook, etc. flag content that has factually untrue material and show content that has the facts or refutes the false content. The way to overcome disinformation is with correct information. It'll never be 100% effective, but it's far better than doing nothing and IMO is much less ripe for abuse than censorship.

Another tactic is to demonetize or otherwise remove the financial incentive of disinformation. YouTube has been doing this to mixed response thus far. This isn't censorship in that it does not prevent the information from getting out, but it does remove the incentive for sources to lie in order to make money.

A lot of the issue with disinformation is not just that it exists, but that it's being pushed by coordinated efforts. A way to combat this is to take a hard stance against bots and people having multiple accounts on sites like Twitter and Facebook. It's not an easy problem to solve but suspending or banning people (or IP addresses) when bots or multiple accounts are detected is another deterrent.

It's not at all in the same realm as book burning, but it is censorship whether you like the connotations or not. And to be clear, I'm not saying all censorship is bad. For example, exceptions to the 1st Amendment like yelling "fire" in a crowded place or inciting violence are not protected speech and can be censored by the government.

As in many things that are complex interactions among people, there's no way to prove that my view is better in all cases. But also means that you can't prove that censorship will be better in all case either. It's a gray area that requires debate and consideration.

But it's not just me that has that opinion:

https://reason.com/2019/05/13/fake-news-is-a-really-dangerous-excuse-for-censorship/

Look into the Streissand Effect for why censorship can be counter-productive. For example, the current NY Post nonsense was barely a story until Twitter banned links to it.

Here's a good deep dive into the current state of disinformation by the conservative Brookings Institute including a bunch of ways to deal with disinformation:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-combat-fake-news-and-disinformation/

I agree. "Who watches the watchers" is perhaps the most important aspect of any system with checks and balances.
Click to expand...
Very good and thoughtful post  :thumbs

Please don’t get me wrong, I am not enamored with the idea of any entity determining what is suitable and what isn’t (censorship). And I am even less trusting of leaving it up to a company like Facebook to make that determination. But considering what has been happening on social media for the last 10+ years, I am happy somebody is beginning to think about it and do something about it. IMO it is a serious enough problem that, for the time being, I am willing to accept this form of censorship. It is a slippery slope for sure and is not the best solution but it is something....a beginning.

I like the idea of real time fact checking and tagging with factual information, I’m just not sure how feasible that really is. And that still leaves the door open for these companies to be the ones determining what is factual and what isn’t.

Also I definitely agree that they need to be much more proactive in culling out and banning bots, hate groups, sites that generate and proliferate disinformation, suspect multiple accounts, etc. It is a huge problem that is negatively affecting our society and huge swaths of our citizenry.

I still feel the best solution is getting society back to a point where a clear majority are able to recognize bullsh#t and identify the truth. That will more easily allow us to marginalize and ignore the batsh#t crazies in our midst. However, getting there will be dependent upon our government and politicians relearning how to get along and actually govern instead of obstructing the “other” party and we’ll have to quit demonizing opposing points of view. I’m just not convinced we can make it back to that point as all these issues are a vicious cycle, feeding off each other.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
I agree. Plus it has to be not worse in other circumstances than it's benefits in the right circumstances.

For example, imagine Koch or Adelson got control of Twitter and made the decisions on what's censored as "disinformation" and what isn't, then does that make things better or worse? Now consider one of those people got control of Twitter but there was no selective censorship.
Click to expand...


To the bold, definitely.

But don't all businesses do that already? Even HuskerBoard - you can't post every thought here. You can get kicked out of a convenience store for wearing a "f#&% the police" t-shirt. Every business has the right to refuse service.

We talked about this a while ago with Landlord. He was kind of saying that these big tech platforms need to be viewed differently. I had made the argument above, and that they have the right to refuse service, and his counter was basically these things are THE public platform now, and the same rules as a convenience store don't apply (sorry for really paraphrasing that LL).

 
RedDenver said:
I'd start by having Twitter, Facebook, etc. flag content that has factually untrue material and show content that has the facts or refutes the false content. The way to overcome disinformation is with correct information. It'll never be 100% effective, but it's far better than doing nothing and IMO is much less ripe for abuse than censorship.
Click to expand...
I stop right here. If you want the overlords to take care of you and decide what's true then you don't really believe in free speech at all.

knapplc said:
To the bold, definitely.

But don't all businesses do that already? Even HuskerBoard - you can't post every thought here. You can get kicked out of a convenience store for wearing a "f#&% the police" t-shirt. Every business has the right to refuse service.

We talked about this a while ago with Landlord. He was kind of saying that these big tech platforms need to be viewed differently. I had made the argument above, and that they have the right to refuse service, and his counter was basically these things are THE public platform now, and the same rules as a convenience store don't apply (sorry for really paraphrasing that LL).
Click to expand...


If the convenience store was so powerful that there was really only a couple of others like it in the entire country, then the country reigns in their ability to censor your shirt. 

 
knapplc said:
To the bold, definitely.

But don't all businesses do that already? Even HuskerBoard - you can't post every thought here. You can get kicked out of a convenience store for wearing a "f#&% the police" t-shirt. Every business has the right to refuse service.

We talked about this a while ago with Landlord. He was kind of saying that these big tech platforms need to be viewed differently. I had made the argument above, and that they have the right to refuse service, and his counter was basically these things are THE public platform now, and the same rules as a convenience store don't apply (sorry for really paraphrasing that LL).
Click to expand...
Again, companies have the RIGHT to censor. I'm talking about whether they SHOULD censor. If their goal is to combat disinformation, then I think censorship is the wrong tool and is ultimately counter productive.

 
Back
Top