Jump to content

Censorship


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, commando said:

republicans are going to force their stuff onto twitter and facebook.....i wonder what they will say if biden and the dems force fox and rush to say things on their programs when the dems are in power?   

 

sean hannity:   Joe biden is the greatest president ever and deserves to serve until he dies.   then it's hunter biden time

 

 

We'll see how far it gets, but they are wanting to force Twitter to allow users to say these things. They aren't wanting to force Twitter to say these things.

Dunno what it could lead to though.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Evergreen.  

Now, I've never heard of the Babylon Bee, and I don't think they need to be censored, but I am entertained by the pearl-clutching from the right wingers on this.   For the past four years, y

This is one of the stupidest things you have said on this board, which is no small feat.

Posted Images

23 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

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.

 

This is a beautiful explanation fwiw.  I have to plus one you

Share this post


Link to post

To say there's no place for censoring speech at all is to unnecessarily remove a tool from your toolbox to keep a society free.

 

Censorship cuts two ways. It can be used for good and bad. But because it can be abused does not mean it has no place. It has to be used responsibly.

 

Guns can be abused, but I want our military to have the best guns they can have, because when they're necessary, they're necessary.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 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.

That is certainly a problem. But censoring the objectionable content doesn't mean Qanon believers will suddenly stop believing.

 

Plus you then have a "who watches the watchers" issue: who decides what is "objectionable"?

Share this post


Link to post

Republicans so upset people don't like them they want to make social media legally liable if they don't leave up disinformation the GOP deems helpful.

 

Think about how screwed up that situation is.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post

trump eats poo.   many are saying it.   i saw it on the internet so it must be true.   

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Republicans so upset people don't like them they want to make social media legally liable if they don't leave up disinformation the GOP deems helpful.

 

Think about how screwed up that situation is.

Yep, that's the flip side to censorship: forcing a private entity to show content. I'm also fully against that, and turns out the 1st Amendment protects private entities from the government censoring them or forcing them not to censor.

 

And it's comical to watch "conservatives" try to argue for forcing Twitter or Facebook to show content given that the same logic applied to right-wing media would cause them to scream about the 1st Amendment.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

That is certainly a problem. But censoring the objectionable content doesn't mean Qanon believers will suddenly stop believing.

 

Plus you then have a "who watches the watchers" issue: who decides what is "objectionable"?

 

Agreed. Conspiracy theorists gonna conspiracy theory. But the less exposure the rest of us have to their ideas, the better the chance we have of slowing their spread.

 

Where do we draw the line? I'd argue a dude rolling into a pizza joint armed to the teeth or some of these white supremacist or militia groups (i.e., Proud Boys, the kidnapping nutjobs up in my neck of the woods, etc.) being radicalized on these sites is ample evidence to suggest we're nearing that point, if not beyond it.

 

The QAnon true believers are probably beyond saving. But they should be quarantined to the darker corners of the internet where they can't continue to infect other people.

Share this post


Link to post

I applaud social media sites for attempting to mitigate disinformation and propaganda. I don't view this as censorship. It's their service and everyone is free to choose if they use it or not. They have every right to ban things they don't want on their lawn (as somebody put it).

 

Disinformation is a huge and growing problem. We've already lost so many to it's consequences. It is getting harder by the day to tell fact from fiction. There is just way too much bullsh#t being spread. I'd say it's one of our biggest challenges. I think it's of more imminent concern than even global warming or environmental issues. If anyone hasn't seen them, there are a couple shows you need to watch. The Social Dilemma on Netflix and Agents of Chaos on HBO. If you can watch those and not think we have a serious problem...IDK.

 

I think all we can do is be diligent in vetting our sources and not trust anyone or anything implicitly. Unfortunately there are big chunks of many generations who have already lost the battle. I hate to say it but there probably is no getting them back. They need to be written off. We must do better educating future generations and learn how to deal with the whackos.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Blocking content is censorship.

 

And is a right afforded to private companies by the First Amendment. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

And is a right afforded to private companies by the First Amendment. 

Just because it's not a criminal act doesn't mean that it isn't a repugnant assault on freedom that should have been condemned by every American.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

And is a right afforded to private companies by the First Amendment. 

 

 

 

Whaaaaaaaaa???

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I applaud social media sites for attempting to mitigate disinformation and propaganda. I don't view this as censorship. It's their service and everyone is free to choose if they use it or not. They have every right to ban things they don't want on their lawn (as somebody put it).

 

Disinformation is a huge and growing problem. We've already lost so many to it's consequences. It is getting harder by the day to tell fact from fiction. There is just way too much bullsh#t being spread. I'd say it's one of our biggest challenges. I think it's of more imminent concern than even global warming or environmental issues. If anyone hasn't seen them, there are a couple shows you need to watch. The Social Dilemma on Netflix and Agents of Chaos on HBO. If you can watch those and not think we have a serious problem...IDK.

 

I think all we can do is be diligent in vetting our sources and not trust anyone or anything implicitly. Unfortunately there are big chunks of many generations who have already lost the battle. I hate to say it but there probably is no getting them back. They need to be written off. We must do better educating future generations and learn how to deal with the whackos.

 

 

 

It is censorship by definition. Just like deleting posts on Huskerboard or banning someone is censorship. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Yep, that's the flip side to censorship: forcing a private entity to show content. I'm also fully against that, and turns out the 1st Amendment protects private entities from the government censoring them or forcing them not to censor.

 

And it's comical to watch "conservatives" try to argue for forcing Twitter or Facebook to show content given that the same logic applied to right-wing media would cause them to scream about the 1st Amendment.

The Civil situation is different because Tech officially denied that they are media companies.  Some of them actually outright lied and said that they don't discriminate against conservatives.  That can lead to major civil consequences.  

 

On the plus side everyone knows their liars and hates them for it.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

Whaaaaaaaaa???

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...