Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

ISP censorship

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by LeaC View Post

    I would say, by not claiming responsibility for content hosted by clients. If Twitter or Facebook isn't responsible for the threats or calls to violence that aren't taken down from their site, then neither is Amazon or Google or Apple. And neither is Parler. Prosecute them for hosting illegal content, but have the courts making the decisions about it. This whole idea of "optics" needs to die. Let companies provide their services and run their own business.
    Why shouldn't they be responsible for platforming terrorists?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

      Why shouldn't they be responsible for platforming terrorists?
      Why should the Chinese government get to tweet pro-genocide rhetoric?

      The actual, non-trivial answer to your trivial question: First, not all 70-100k+ people banned from Twitter were terrorists. That's absurd. There were roughly 300 people who broke into the Capitol building itself, last I heard. Second, do you also advocate for every single BLM and ANTIFA protestor banned from Twitter - or at the very least, all the ones who committed acts of violence? If no, justify why not. If yes, did you advocate it before the Capitol riot?

      Finally, my stance is that censorship is never helpful. If people are planning terrorist activity online, that is incredibly stupid of them, because the FBI can track their conversation easily. And as repugnant as it may be to let dictators tweet propaganda, I believe it's also important to be able to witness and record that propaganda. If they are making explicit threats - which Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook have all tolerated - those threats should be reported to law enforcement. We should not be leaving criminal matters in the hands of unelected billionaires. Worse, and far more dangerous, we should not be leaving matters of truth in the hands of unelected, unqualified, non-expert billionaires.

      I do think there can be some moderation, but that it should be minimal.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

        What you're essentially arguing for is regulation preventing companies from acting in their own interest for the sake of preserving financial and legal liability because conservative investors aren't interested in backing alternatives. It's very heavy handed and completely opposed to libertarian ideology, and if you aren't able to even offer a solution, you come across, at least to me, as having had an emotional, knee-jerk reaction and immediately, without thinking it through, wanting a solution solely to appease self-interest.
        And what you're essentially arguing is "why be against something if you're unable to offer an alternative" - which is tantamount to saying 'accept anything disagreeable unless you have a solution'.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Ronson View Post

          And what you're essentially arguing is "why be against something if you're unable to offer an alternative" - which is tantamount to saying 'accept anything disagreeable unless you have a solution'.
          "It's too complicated" or "I don't know much about the matter" are the sort of answers I would expect to that question. If you don't have a solution in mind, then for all you know the current state of things is the ideal, regardless of the outcome. Also, this is a discussion forum, so you should be able to articulate any proffered opinions.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by LeaC View Post

            Why should the Chinese government get to tweet pro-genocide rhetoric?

            The actual, non-trivial answer to your trivial question: First, not all 70-100k+ people banned from Twitter were terrorists. That's absurd. There were roughly 300 people who broke into the Capitol building itself, last I heard. Second, do you also advocate for every single BLM and ANTIFA protestor banned from Twitter - or at the very least, all the ones who committed acts of violence? If no, justify why not. If yes, did you advocate it before the Capitol riot?

            Finally, my stance is that censorship is never helpful. If people are planning terrorist activity online, that is incredibly stupid of them, because the FBI can track their conversation easily. And as repugnant as it may be to let dictators tweet propaganda, I believe it's also important to be able to witness and record that propaganda. If they are making explicit threats - which Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook have all tolerated - those threats should be reported to law enforcement. We should not be leaving criminal matters in the hands of unelected billionaires. Worse, and far more dangerous, we should not be leaving matters of truth in the hands of unelected, unqualified, non-expert billionaires.

            I do think there can be some moderation, but that it should be minimal.
            I would approve of the banning of accounts promoting Uyghur genocide. According to Twitter, the banned accounts were QAnon personal accounts or bots, and QAnon is a dangerous extremist cult that was instrumental in the storming of the Capitol building, so the bans are justified.. BLM and Antifa aren't comparable to insurrectionists or terrorists, so their banning would not be morally justifiable. "Committed acts of violence" is too vague a classification.

            There are three problems with your stance.

            1. Hosts are responsible for the actions of any extremist/criminal groups they platform, if not legally then morally. If a group of pedophiles used one of the TheologyWeb subforums to coordinate the swapping of child porn, and the administrators knew about it and did nothing to stop it, the administrators would have helped in the dissemination and creation of child pornography. Likewise, if a group of pedophiles used a subforum to promote child rape, the administrators would be responsible for any heinous acts done as a result of that promotion.

            2. As far as we know, deplatforming stops extremists/criminals. By decentralizing and complicating communities/co-ordination, groups fall apart and members move on to other things. Here's a good article that cites a few studies.

            3. Nobody can truly be deplatformed. Piratebay and Stormfront are able to continue operation. If a dictator or terrorists want to spread misinformation, they will be able to do so without the help of Twitter or Amazon web hosting. Nobody's voice is truly being silenced.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

              Yes, they've been champions of Net Neutrality, saying we can't trust corporations to choose what speech we see or hear...
              can you say Irony? I thought you could. The left is now saying it trusts Twitter, Google, Amazon, Apple ect to choose what speech we see or hear.
              Last edited by RumTumTugger; 01-18-2021, 01:57 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by eider View Post

                Hi.....
                Surely.....
                ​​​​​​It's a strange situation when some of the richest companies in the World are accused of being 'leftist' when they make decisions which 'rightists' don't approve of.

                A clear example of 'rightists' branding folks and companies and even whole continents 'leftist' is the recent situation where so many Republican leaders are now turning away from President Trump's talk and actions. They've all become 'leftists'.!!!!

                It would be funny if it wasn't so sinister..... oh, that means 'left' of course.

                So the rules seem to be.....
                If others provoke crimes then this is bad.
                If our own provoke crimes then this is right-eous.
                If we should ban content then this is lawful.
                If they ban content then it is anti free speech.

                It goes on...... Political tribalism on both extreme left and extreme right, but at this time it's the extreme right, I think.
                nice way to accuse the other side of what your side is guilty of
                #Newspeak
                #Orwells 1984 is here
                NO we are not saying that if others provoke crimes this is bad and if our own do it is good, the right and classic liberals are saying it is bad on both sides and calling out the hypocrisy of the left and in most cases falsly accusing those they disagree with of what they are doing.

                sorry elder it is extreme left doing it not the right.
                Last edited by RumTumTugger; 01-18-2021, 01:13 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

                  I would approve of the banning of accounts promoting Uyghur genocide. According to Twitter, the banned accounts were QAnon personal accounts or bots, and QAnon is a dangerous extremist cult that was instrumental in the storming of the Capitol building, so the bans are justified.. BLM and Antifa aren't comparable to insurrectionists or terrorists, so their banning would not be morally justifiable. "Committed acts of violence" is too vague a classification.

                  There are three problems with your stance.

                  1. Hosts are responsible for the actions of any extremist/criminal groups they platform, if not legally then morally. If a group of pedophiles used one of the TheologyWeb subforums to coordinate the swapping of child porn, and the administrators knew about it and did nothing to stop it, the administrators would have helped in the dissemination and creation of child pornography. Likewise, if a group of pedophiles used a subforum to promote child rape, the administrators would be responsible for any heinous acts done as a result of that promotion.

                  2. As far as we know, deplatforming stops extremists/criminals. By decentralizing and complicating communities/co-ordination, groups fall apart and members move on to other things. Here's a good article that cites a few studies.

                  3. Nobody can truly be deplatformed. Piratebay and Stormfront are able to continue operation. If a dictator or terrorists want to spread misinformation, they will be able to do so without the help of Twitter or Amazon web hosting. Nobody's voice is truly being silenced.
                  Twitter's original claim about that is that they were verifying phone numbers. When that claim fell through as blatantly untrue, they switched to the QAnon story. And still no, 100k+ people are not supporters of QAnon. I have no idea how you determine that the people who committed terroristic acts of violence in connection to BLM and Antifa were somehow not terrorists.

                  1. This... happens already, actually. But I have no problem with platforms shutting down illegal activity, IF that is in conjunction with law enforcement. The reason why is to avoid situations where Twitter gets to 'convict' people in the court of public opinion, giving the impression that all the people they ban were "terrorists". Seems like we're heading for a future where a question on an employment application could be 'Are you now, or have you ever been banned from Twitter?' Given that you seem convinced that all the people they banned were terrorists or speakers of "hate", despite being given no evidence for either(beyond Twitter assurance), it doesn't seem far off.

                  2. Lol... Vice is not a good source for anything. If you deplatform people from speaking in public forums, those public forums will have fewer of the types of conversations going on that you deplatformed. That doesn't make the problem or the people go away or change their minds. It just pushes them further underground and toward more extreme positions. Best of all, now they resent the people who pushed them off. Problem not solved.

                  3. Yes, people in power will still be able to use that power to spread their message. The people within their regime have lost easy access to speak, however. Raising the barrier of entry to public forums means that only the wealthy elites will be heard. The wealthy elites are just as capable of spreading misinformation and propaganda. They're not scientists and it's not their job to determine fact from fiction.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

                    "It's too complicated" or "I don't know much about the matter" are the sort of answers I would expect to that question.
                    My answer was "it would need to be explored." i.e. "people with the time and expertise would need to find a better system."

                    If you don't have a solution in mind, then for all you know the current state of things is the ideal, regardless of the outcome.
                    People on both sides of the political spectrum are already in agreement. Allowing Big Tech companies (actually, the billionaires who own and run them) have too much power over Internet speech. They do not own the web.

                    Also, this is a discussion forum, so you should be able to articulate any proffered opinions.
                    I did.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      It's a bit ironic to see Republicans complaining about ISP censorship when they were the ones who got rid of net neutrality, which would have protected against such things.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                        nice way to accuse the other side of what your side is guilty of
                        #Newspeak
                        #Orwells 1984 is here
                        NO we are not saying that if others provoke crimes this is bad and if our own do it is good, the right and classic liberals are saying it is bad on both sides and calling out the hypocrisy of the left and in most cases falsly accusing those they disagree with of what they are doing.

                        sorry elder it is extreme left doing it not the right.
                        OK......... you don't have to feel sorry, RTT.
                        I am heart set against extremism to right or left. Either of those mindsets have led to catastrophes all over the World, all through history.

                        But just now I (mostly) read Extreme Republicans calling 'anything' right of themselves as 'Leftists'. They've called Republicans 'leftists', haven't they? Woe to extremism, either way.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                          It's a bit ironic to see Republicans complaining about ISP censorship when they were the ones who got rid of net neutrality, which would have protected against such things.
                          I posted this to catalog how low we have gone, and where we may go. It's a natural reaction to liberal censorship.

                          ​​​​
                          ​​​​​​

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                            My answer was "it would need to be explored." i.e. "people with the time and expertise would need to find a better system."
                            So along those lines.

                            People on both sides of the political spectrum are already in agreement. Allowing Big Tech companies (actually, the billionaires who own and run them) have too much power over Internet speech. They do not own the web.
                            They own their websites and hosting services, and so they're entitled to do what they want with them. This isn't a bipartisan issue, this is a reactionary issue to extremist conservatives who live in an ideological bubble finding out that most people don't share their views.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                              This isn't a bipartisan issue, this is a reactionary issue to extremist conservatives who live in an ideological bubble finding out that most people don't share their views.
                              https://newspunch.com/merkel-slams-b...s-problematic/

                              Leftist opinion ^

                              It's not an issue for people who don't care about liberty.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by eider View Post

                                OK......... you don't have to feel sorry, RTT.
                                I am heart set against extremism to right or left. Either of those mindsets have led to catastrophes all over the World, all through history.

                                But just now I (mostly) read Extreme Republicans calling 'anything' right of themselves as 'Leftists'. They've called Republicans 'leftists', haven't they? Woe to extremism, either way.
                                Trying to find something here with which to disagree.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                307 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X