Censorship

RedDenver

RedDenver

New member
With Twitter and Facebook now censoring links to stories, I thought a thread to discuss censorship was in order. These tweets captures my thoughts about Twitter:



 


Calling disinformation "stories you don't like" is to blandly assert that disinformation and outright propaganda is not being disseminated in this country, via social media and other avenues. Our own intelligence community has told us this is happening. We know Russia, among others, actively injected disinformation into the 2016 election. 

This happens, it will continue to happen, and we have to be alert to it. As a consequence, the ability to censor disinformation must be available to those who believe in truth. 

This isn't to say it's easy to discern truth. But a task should not be set aside simply because it's difficult. 

 
knapplc said:
Calling disinformation "stories you don't like" is to blandly assert that disinformation and outright propaganda is not being disseminated in this country, via social media and other avenues. Our own intelligence community has told us this is happening. We know Russia, among others, actively injected disinformation into the 2016 election. 

This happens, it will continue to happen, and we have to be alert to it. As a consequence, the ability to censor disinformation must be available to those who believe in truth. 

This isn't to say it's easy to discern truth. But a task should not be set aside simply because it's difficult. 
Click to expand...
I think censorship is one of the worst ways to deal with disinformation. It simply adds fuel to the conspiracy by giving it some semblance of legitimacy. The best way to deal with disinformation is with information.

Plus censorship is a slippery slope. What happens if the truth is censored under the guise of "disinformation"?

(Also, Shapiro is definitely not an honest actor here as he says one thing when his side does something but then the opposite when his opponents do something similar.)

 
RedDenver said:
I think censorship is one of the worst ways to deal with disinformation. It simply adds fuel to the conspiracy by giving it some semblance of legitimacy. The best way to deal with disinformation is with information.

Plus censorship is a slippery slope. What happens if the truth is censored under the guise of "disinformation"?

(Also, Shapiro is definitely not an honest actor here as he says one thing when his side does something but then the opposite when his opponents do something similar.)
Click to expand...




It's a very complex subject. Countries with free access to the internet open themselves up to foreign influence. Also, the leader of our country is successfully convincing people not to trust the media, and giving them information isn't helping. I don't know that censorship is the answer but we have to come up with a way to prevent people from falling for the bulls#!t.

 
Moiraine said:
It's a very complex subject. Countries with free access to the internet open themselves up to foreign influence. Also, the leader of our country is successfully convincing people not to trust the media, and giving them information isn't helping. I don't know that censorship is the answer but we have to come up with a way to prevent people from falling for the bulls#!t.
Click to expand...


Yeah.

I'm amenable to the "censorship isn't the answer, providing the truth is" argument.

Problem is, test cases here show that doesn't always work. Some people don't WANT the truth. Conspiracy is more appealing and exciting to them.

Case in point: You can show QAnon believers stuff that shows how utterly absurd it and Pizzagate are.

They don't [want to] believe it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman said:
Yeah.

I'm amenable to the "censorship isn't the answer, providing the truth is" argument.

Problem is, test cases here show that doesn't always work. Some people don't WANT the truth. Conspiracy is more appealing and exciting to them.

Case in point: You can show QAnon believers stuff that shows how utterly absurd it and Pizzagate are.

They don't [want to] believe it.
Click to expand...




What we can work on is increasing voter turnout to try to drown out their voices. Part of that is up to the Democrats creating laws to prevent the suppression that exists today.

 
Should I complain every time Huskerboard censors my posts on the crab people overlords puppeteering our economic markets to facilitate global warming for more algae blooms.

Or should we be ok with private companies eliminating certain headlines that will likely create public disinformation that will be difficult to refute once into the public sphere?

 
Moiraine said:
Censorship does not only apply to government. A private company has the right to censor content, but it's still censorship.
Click to expand...
am i censoring stuff if donnie tells me to put a trump sign in my yard and i refuse?  i kind of see what twitter is doing as pretty much the same thing.

 
commando said:
am i censoring stuff if donnie tells me to put a trump sign in my yard and i refuse?  i kind of see what twitter is doing as pretty much the same thing.
Click to expand...


I don't know if censoring is the right word for that.

But Twitter is inviting anyone who wants to to put things on their lawn. If anyone puts something on their lawn they don't like, they can then throw it away. They're censoring that content. They're choosing which signs they allow on their lawn and which people they allow to put signs on their lawn. 

But I don't think this topic is really about whether the government should force the content to be allowed. It's more about whether FB, Twitter, etc. are doing the right thing and what the repercussions could be.

 
Back
Top