heywood on 6/4/2018 at 19:46
Starker -
Facebook isn't just used to keep in touch with friends. Facebook is the principal (and sometimes only) web presence for a wide range of businesses. There are also a lot of individuals making a side income or even a living off of Facebook, either as a content creator or as a social media influencer.
As Pyrian alluded to, some of these bigger providers (e.g. Google, Facebook) are as powerful as common carriers but aren't regulated much if at all.
Anyway, we generally accept that there is no guaranteed right to free speech on private forums such as TTLG, which is more like a social club than a public business, so the mods here can pretty much censor at will without fear of legal penalty. You might think the same should be true of Facebook and YouTube, but they are different because they are businesses that are providing a service. Because we have laws against discrimination, they shouldn't be allowed to deny their services to an individual because they are a Muslim, or gay, or a skinhead.
Our Supreme Court has made it pretty clear through a history of cases that some categories of speech are not protected. It's reasonable to expect a site like Facebook or YouTube, at least their US presence, to have terms of service that forbid certain types of content consistent with the Court's ruling.
I'm honestly not sure whether or not your example fits within a category of non-protected speech. It's probably treading a line. Even if it doesn't, it looks like it was a troll, and I don't think anyone could claim they were discriminated against because it was removed.
A more real example is Muslims being blocked for posting Islamist and/or anti-American content, as well as people being blocked for posting anti-Muslim content. Both types of speech are protected by our Constitution, but are blocked on Facebook. Another recent example that is more relevant to this particular thread is YouTube taking down gun related videos that didn't show anybody doing anything illegal.
FWIW, I've been an on-again, off-again ACLU member, so that's where I'm coming from.
Starker on 6/4/2018 at 20:43
I'm not talking about banning someone for being a skinhead or anti-American, though. I'm talking about hate groups that pretty clearly advocate violence and/or harass other users. As far as I'm concerned, groups like the example I brought above go far beyond just having a different opinion. They clearly go too far when they are posting guides how to get away with rape or dissect a victim's story to find out the best ways for intimidating victims into silence.
catbarf on 7/4/2018 at 00:59
I think people are quick to justify suppression of undesirable viewpoints as 'not censorship' as a result of the general attitude that censorship is a Really Bad Thing, so therefore any suppression which seems justifiable needs a caveat to escape that 'censorship' label. And then we get these common but absolutely nonsensical distinctions like 'it's not censorship if it's not the government doing it' or 'it's not censorship if the offender did something to deserve being censored'.
I'm comfortable with denying a platform to really heinous views like the one Starker posted, while simultaneously acknowledging it as an act of censorship by definition. I mean, what does a cable TV censor do if a private corporation restricting certain content on their distribution isn't censorship? I see no reason why a website, especially one with the power of Facebook, Youtube, or Reddit, restricting certain content shouldn't be considered censorship.
I think it's much more useful to talk about when censorship is justified than to essentially argue over whether or not something 'really' counts as censorship while also arguing over the definition. Censoring bad actors that advocate comitting serious crimes against others and are generally morally repugnant to virtually everyone? Yeah, I'm fine with that. Censoring specific topics because they're controversial to advertisers? That's a lot more iffy, IMO. It's a matter of degrees, not any qualitative difference between the two.
Starker on 7/4/2018 at 04:14
I don't think it's censorship to ban someone because their behaviour is threatening to other users, but we clearly disagree on this point and there's not a lot of point in arguing semantics, so let's leave it at that. Likewise with spam -- you're not really censoring the content, but a certain kind of obnoxious behaviour. And I think it goes without saying that criticism isn't censorship.
Starker on 18/4/2018 at 19:24
Apparently, it never ends for the survivors of mass shootings and friends and families of the victims:
[video=youtube;To91BJGKr5I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To91BJGKr5I[/video]
Renzatic on 18/4/2018 at 19:37
Notice how they referred to people who believe the truth as having a mental illness? Remember when they said being a Jew or a Red Blooded Conservative American was a mental illness? That's how The Left gets you. They divide. They conquer. Chemtrails.
heywood on 18/4/2018 at 23:30
These people are the modern cultists, loosely organized by the internet instead of gathering in churches and communes.
Tony_Tarantula on 18/4/2018 at 23:43
Wait now we're talking about "Crisis actor conspiracy theory"?
Last time I heard about this thing was about four or five years ago when it was fairly widely known that local outlets would throw people (usually some impoverished student at the local drama school) a few bucks to sob on camera about how some story had emotionally impacted them.
Hogg's a little famous to be a "crisis actor" though.
Tony_Tarantula on 18/4/2018 at 23:44
Quote Posted by Starker
Never knew ACLU was a right wing organisation.
Actually....
According the current dialectic, ACLUS are fascists: (
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/12/16138326/aclu-charlottesville-protests-racism)
Quote:
If someone is banned for things like inciting violence and advocating rape, they can go to voat or gab or wherever. They are not entitled to be on the most popular platforms.
Also, as I see it, people don't have any obligation to tolerate someone who is, say, glamouring for a race war. They are completely in their right to protest and "PC police" them.
As for the companies, why should they allow all kinds of content? Why should they give space for someone advocating a race war? And what about the reputation of the companies? Should they be forced to condone something like this?
So is discussing gun maintenance "inciting violence"? Is criticizing censorship "inciting violence".
You're pulling a HUGE strawman and attempting to insinuate that it's just innocuous censorship of hate speech. FFS Facebook censored two black female Trump supporters claiming they were a "threat to the community" when anyone who's actually watched any of their videos knows they're freaking harmless. There's dozens more examples that can easily be found where things that are relatively innocuous have been censored.
It isn't that "hate speech" is being censored. That always has been censored and nobody gave a shit. It's extremely disingenous for you to try to base your argument on the assumption that it is just "hate speech" when it reality the trend is towards a status quo where anyone even remotely edgy or controversial gets censored from the platform...the protected class established of "trusted providers" (who just "coincidentally" happen to be corporate networks that invest a lot of money into Youtube) who can do whatever they want without getting troubled.
And for you Starker, how DARE you call yourself a "progressive" or a "liberal" when you're advocating in favor of corporate abuse of independent content creators? It's amazing....you're now openly advocating for right-wing totalitarian policies while still patting yourself on the back for being a forward thinking progressie.
Tocky on 19/4/2018 at 01:42
Holy fuck you can twist shit Tony. Are you trying for a job on Fox news? YOU throw a strawman at Starker with the discussing gun maintenance and then accuse HIM of a strawman? WTF? Nothing you say most of the time connects with reality. And after a lame defense of total nutjob conspiracy loonies by saying there are crisis actors which shows you have swallowed the Jones Koolaide I shouldn't be surprised. Do you actually believe Alex Jones? Just a yes or no to let us know if you need medication.
Now you might have some point about the black girls who were using the gullibility of the right to make money off of them by espousing their crap. Facebook wasn't set up to be a platform for anyone but facebook to make money but I'm all for letting idiots have as much rope as they need to hang themselves. However I do understand why Walmart doesn't let any man off the street sell shit in front of their stores. I also understand that from facebook. I mean, hell, everybody knows Youtube is the place for that anyway. They are still selling their crap. But when you are in a store that someone is letting you sell your crap in and you start running down that store like a complete retard nobody is surprised when they shift the toilet paper display in front of them. They shouldn't be either but they are idiots.
And Christ on a Popsicle stick, "the current dialectic"? The ACLU has always stood for free speech. Violence and incitement of it is another story. Are you incapable of parsing what Starker said without adding imaginary crap to it? Watch Starkers video. THAT is what your right wing is headed toward. And it's why I jumped the independent train a good while back. I hear nearly no sense coming from the right these days.
