knapplc Posted May 6, 2019 Author Share Posted May 6, 2019 On 5/4/2019 at 11:10 PM, RedDenver said: Again, you're avoiding the main argument against this: the slippery slope of censorship. For example: No, I'm not. I'm saying censorship is the lesser of two evils. Even if we were talking about wholesale censorship (we aren't, we're talking about a few bad actors being banned from platforms), still that would be a less evil outcome than mass murder. Further, the concerns of the deleterious effects of censorship are, currently, theoretical. Mass murder is actually factually happening right now - San Diego and Christchurch. Link to comment
teachercd Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 If it is "your" business...do what you want. If I owned a business I would pretend like I was into whatever that customer was into...I want to make dollars. Also, if you don't like something just don't read it or listen to it. I don't like country music so I don't listen to country music. I don't like stuff with onions and/or mushrooms so I don't buy stuff with onions and/or mushrooms. When I was a kid Farrakhan was on TV like once a week...giving his sermons/speeches whatever...I would be flipping through the stations...see him talking...and keep flipping. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 16 minutes ago, knapplc said: No, I'm not. I'm saying censorship is the lesser of two evils. Even if we were talking about wholesale censorship (we aren't, we're talking about a few bad actors being banned from platforms), still that would be a less evil outcome than mass murder. Further, the concerns of the deleterious effects of censorship are, currently, theoretical. Mass murder is actually factually happening right now - San Diego and Christchurch. We'll just have to disagree that censorship is a lesser evil. Censorship is not theoretical, look at Russia and China among many others to see it affecting billions of people every day. And while mass murders may be happening, it's also theoretical that they wouldn't have happened with censorship. Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 6, 2019 Author Share Posted May 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, RedDenver said: We'll just have to disagree that censorship is a lesser evil. Censorship is not theoretical, look at Russia and China among many others to see it affecting billions of people every day. And while mass murders may be happening, it's also theoretical that they wouldn't have happened with censorship. Yeah, I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with the notion that it's a worse thing to be censored than to be murdered. Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 1 hour ago, knapplc said: Yeah, I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with the notion that it's a worse thing to be censored than to be murdered. Yea but you are drawing a conclusion that isn't really there. As RedDenver said, its purely theoretical to assume censorship would curb mass murder. Correlation is not causation. So yes, its obvious that mass murder is worse than censorship, but just because you frame your argument in this extreme way doesn't mean the point you are making about censorship is correct. I think the deplatforming issue is slightly overblown on both sides. I think there is ultimately no reason to deplatform someone, as I don't think that is an effective strategy for curbing ideas. I also don't think the people being deplatformed should be whining as much. Its a private company running an internet site and they can do as they please. Further more, being deplatformed from Youtube affects a persons life very little in the grand scheme. I'm against censorship but I guess for me that is on a governmental level. These platforms are services provided by companies and they can decide how they want their service used. At the same time I don't think these companies are preventing mass murder by deplatforming certain content. 2 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 1 hour ago, knapplc said: Yeah, I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with the notion that it's a worse thing to be censored than to be murdered. That's fine, but it's also an extremely simplistic view of the world. First, you're making the gigantic leap in logic that censoring hate speech results in fewer mass murders. Second, you're making the case that an authoritarian government should be able to censor you as long as they prevent your murder, which is anathema to everything that our country was founded on. Life is far better IMO when we have more freedoms but run the tiny risk of bad things happening as a result of those freedoms than losing those freedoms and having a tinier chance of bad things happening. Link to comment
Landlord Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 So while we're on this acceptance of private censorship and deplatforming based on whatever they feel like, should this also naturally apply to people like ANTIFA, leftist celebrities doxxing people, coordinated harassment campaigns around conservative pundits and politicians, etc.? Should Shaun King be banned from Twitter for consistently lying about police uses of force? Or is it just hate speech? What qualifies hate speech? 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 17 minutes ago, Landlord said: So while we're on this acceptance of private censorship and deplatforming based on whatever they feel like, should this also naturally apply to people like ANTIFA, leftist celebrities doxxing people, coordinated harassment campaigns around conservative pundits and politicians, etc.? Should Shaun King be banned from Twitter for consistently lying about police uses of force? Or is it just hate speech? What qualifies hate speech? That is up to each private company to define. It will ebb and flow with the customers they wish to keep, the companies might deem something as inappropriate and then lose a bunch of followers/posters. Another platform will welcome them. 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 8 minutes ago, funhusker said: That is up to each private company to define. It will ebb and flow with the customers they wish to keep, the companies might deem something as inappropriate and then lose a bunch of followers/posters. Another platform will welcome them. Exactly. The platforms can do as they wish and anyone that is banned from say twitter is free to spread their ideas elsewhere, perhaps on their own sites ala Alex Jones or on another platform more willing to accept their views. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 6, 2019 Author Share Posted May 6, 2019 30 minutes ago, Landlord said: So while we're on this acceptance of private censorship and deplatforming based on whatever they feel like, should this also naturally apply to people like ANTIFA, leftist celebrities doxxing people, coordinated harassment campaigns around conservative pundits and politicians, etc.? Should Shaun King be banned from Twitter for consistently lying about police uses of force? Or is it just hate speech? What qualifies hate speech? Did you ever ban someone from the forum you modded? Link to comment
Landlord Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 21 minutes ago, funhusker said: That is up to each private company to define. It will ebb and flow with the customers they wish to keep, the companies might deem something as inappropriate and then lose a bunch of followers/posters. Another platform will welcome them. Okay, I just wanted to clearly understand that we are comfortable giving these companies that power. 9 minutes ago, knapplc said: Did you ever ban someone from the forum you modded? Yes, of course. But I admin'd sites of maybe 100 active users with plenty of competition from other sites bigger, smaller and the same size. I personally wouldn't be comfortable fulfilling that role at the scale we're talking about with these tech giants. Similarly, if I had kids I would discipline them how I see fit but I would not find it appropriate to take my subjective perspective on how to do that and make it policy for all kids. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 28 minutes ago, Landlord said: Yes, of course. But I admin'd sites of maybe 100 active users That is completely immaterial. 1 Link to comment
Cdog923 Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 33 minutes ago, Landlord said: Okay, I just wanted to clearly understand that we are comfortable giving these companies that power. Companies have always had the right to refuse service, though. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 6, 2019 Author Share Posted May 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Cdog923 said: Companies have always had the right to refuse service, though. That's what I'm confused about with this. Some people seem to be acting as if this is a new thing. It's always been this way. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 1 hour ago, knapplc said: That's what I'm confused about with this. Some people seem to be acting as if this is a new thing. It's always been this way. "Always"? The internet is only a few decades old, and social media platforms are only about a decade or so old. Link to comment
Recommended Posts