|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 16 2022 00:28 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 00:11 KwarK wrote:On April 15 2022 23:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 15 2022 23:30 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know if you've been on twitter in the past few years but the last thing the platform needs is less moderation. Its already the biggest pit of hate on the internet and letting it run wild is going to make things even worse. Notice I said political speech suppression, not content moderation. That's a distinction many don't want to make, but it's an important one. Twitter should get its dirty hands out of the former category. @Wombat, problem is that no one should be in the business of removing ideas from the discourse because they aren't the "good" ones. People can make anything political. All speech is political speech to someone. Being in a same sex relationship is a political statement to a lot of people for example. Nothing can be political without first being personal to someone. If it didn't matter to certain people it would/could never enter the political sphere. Who makes certain things political and why is the only question that's left. The framing of "they're making it political when it doesn't need to be" is baseless. Who is it political to, and why? Who is it personal for, and why? I digress a little bit, but I agree. What does "content moderation" look like as opposed to taking a political stance, when all the content on the platform is political from one slant or another? The issue is not that they're being political, it's that they don't like the political stance being taken. My complaints regarding Fox News do not consist of them being political. My complaints are that they are a vacuum-sealed propaganda machine that encourages their viewers to be angry and miserable and to inflict those feelings on others.
This is a slight spin on one of the most important principles of second wave feminism and it is as true today as it was back in the 60s and 70s.
|
On April 16 2022 00:18 NewSunshine wrote:
Reminder that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You're free to express that you think the local flying squirrels in your area should be inducted into the KKK, but don't be surprised when you get your ass lumberjack-tossed the fuck out of that space afterward.
How many arguments did we have to have about cakes to establish that private businesses should have the ability to do anything they want? But now Twitter is engaging in suppression of free speech. I didn't know Twitter was a government fixture. Last I checked, it was a (shitty) private business that can make decisions about what it will allow in its venue.
And let's not act like Musk wants in just to right some political wrongs, the dude is a megalomaniacal billionaire, and accruing more capitalism victory points like this is the only way you can approach feeling something anymore.
The framing of this issue as "private companies have freedom" and "consequences for your speech" is always a way of concealing that the true intent is to remove particular ideas from the means of discourse (i.e. Twitter). This framing is always brought up, and it's never a slam dunk. Just state your true goal: to remove particular ideas from the discourse, or in other words, to suppress speech.
WombaT at least pinpointed the actual point being made: that the free marketplace of ideas is a bad idea.
|
Maybe we should think about how a single company got so large and influential that it potentially changing an owner is a global political issue.
|
Elon Musk is a retarded edge lord, and I think him taking over Twitter is the best thing that could happen to the internet. If Twitter's shitty self-moderation is *just* enough to prevent countries from making laws to regulate internet platforms, what is said on them and who is responsible when, then Musk is exactly the right guy to have them, and in particular the EU, take action post-haste. Let's do this!
That's not to say regulation will be good or make sense. I wish we didn't have 70-year-old luddites making legislation. But it's definitely better than letting the Zuckerberg of the world make up their own rules.
|
I see a lot of good coming from this petty piss-fight that is an attempted Twitter hostile takeover.
Whether or not it's about actually taking over Twitter I don't know, but it's amusing all the same. Not much of a platform worth saving there anyways, so whatever collateral we see is an acceptable loss.
|
On April 16 2022 00:40 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 00:18 NewSunshine wrote:
Reminder that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You're free to express that you think the local flying squirrels in your area should be inducted into the KKK, but don't be surprised when you get your ass lumberjack-tossed the fuck out of that space afterward.
How many arguments did we have to have about cakes to establish that private businesses should have the ability to do anything they want? But now Twitter is engaging in suppression of free speech. I didn't know Twitter was a government fixture. Last I checked, it was a (shitty) private business that can make decisions about what it will allow in its venue.
And let's not act like Musk wants in just to right some political wrongs, the dude is a megalomaniacal billionaire, and accruing more capitalism victory points like this is the only way you can approach feeling something anymore. The framing of this issue as "private companies have freedom" and "consequences for your speech" is always a way of concealing that the true intent is to remove particular ideas from the means of discourse (i.e. Twitter). This framing is always brought up, and it's never a slam dunk. Just state your true goal: to remove particular ideas from the discourse, or in other words, to suppress speech. WombaT at least pinpointed the actual point being made: that the free marketplace of ideas is a bad idea.
I mean, basically he's right. I see the issue as, if you're spewing hate speech, or sowing misinformation, or preaching discrimination against people, that is not ok, no matter who's saying it or where or why. But this stuff wins out so often because of gish gallop-type stuff, where people just get so exhausted by a flood of zero-effort, bad faith lies and harassment, that people stop caring to figure out what's right or good. It's easier to say it's all bad, throw your hands up and move on. You just seem to be framing it as "universal free speech = good, being actioned for saying awful things = censorship", or that people are only looking to silence opinions they disagree with. It's not that easy. You don't get to just assign that intent to people.
Your problem is that people tend to disagree with ideas that are fucking terrible, and that no, maybe those terrible ideas shouldn't have as much airtime as everything else. Hence market place of ideas not working as intended. People aren't victims for having different ideas, they're called out for having shitty ideas and not course correcting when folks point that out.
|
Why does twitter need to change? Why can't someone else just make a superior product that supports free speech and doesn't ban "political speech"? I mean, if it's better, surely it'll eclipse twitter in active users and twitter will die out, right? Do we not believe in the power of free markets anymore?
|
Censorship and "marketplace of ideas" are not really very compatible concepts, and there seems to be a whole lot of cognitive dissonance in assuming they are.
Pick one. Either censorship (under whatever banner people like to hide it, e.g. removing hate speech) is a good thing, or we should let ideas win out in an environment of free speech. Most people very much seem to like the former, they just want censorship to be marketed under some more friendly-sounding word or something.
|
On April 16 2022 00:40 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 00:18 NewSunshine wrote:
Reminder that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You're free to express that you think the local flying squirrels in your area should be inducted into the KKK, but don't be surprised when you get your ass lumberjack-tossed the fuck out of that space afterward.
How many arguments did we have to have about cakes to establish that private businesses should have the ability to do anything they want? But now Twitter is engaging in suppression of free speech. I didn't know Twitter was a government fixture. Last I checked, it was a (shitty) private business that can make decisions about what it will allow in its venue.
And let's not act like Musk wants in just to right some political wrongs, the dude is a megalomaniacal billionaire, and accruing more capitalism victory points like this is the only way you can approach feeling something anymore. The framing of this issue as "private companies have freedom" and "consequences for your speech" is always a way of concealing that the true intent is to remove particular ideas from the means of discourse (i.e. Twitter). This framing is always brought up, and it's never a slam dunk. Just state your true goal: to remove particular ideas from the discourse, or in other words, to suppress speech. WombaT at least pinpointed the actual point being made: that the free marketplace of ideas is a bad idea.
Its incredible that you both are attacking capitalism as well as free speech while trying to support capitalism and free speech.
The free marketplace of ideas being a good thing is literally one of the only lessons we've learned from even the greek times.
|
On April 16 2022 02:46 StasisField wrote:
Why does twitter need to change? Why can't someone else just make a superior product that supports free speech and doesn't ban "political speech"? I mean, if it's better, surely it'll eclipse twitter in active users and twitter will die out, right? Do we not believe in the power of free markets anymore? oh the right has tried to make replacement. Ironically they have even heavier moderation then Twitter because they desperately need their safe space.
|
On April 16 2022 02:49 LegalLord wrote:
Censorship and "marketplace of ideas" are not really very compatible concepts, and there seems to be a whole lot of cognitive dissonance in assuming they are.
Pick one. Either censorship (under whatever banner people like to hide it, e.g. removing hate speech) is a good thing, or we should let ideas win out in an environment of free speech. Most people very much seem to like the former, they just want censorship to be marketed under some more friendly-sounding word or something.
Free speech doesn't give somebody the right to hold a KKK meeting on my lawn. I don't want them to have a KKK meeting at all, and I can't really stop them from doing it somewhere else, but I can sure as hell boot em off my lawn for doing so.
|
On April 16 2022 02:49 LegalLord wrote:
Censorship and "marketplace of ideas" are not really very compatible concepts, and there seems to be a whole lot of cognitive dissonance in assuming they are.
Pick one. Either censorship (under whatever banner people like to hide it, e.g. removing hate speech) is a good thing, or we should let ideas win out in an environment of free speech. Most people very much seem to like the former, they just want censorship to be marketed under some more friendly-sounding word or something.
It's the same thing as the point I made with the Hunter Biden laptop. People jumped down my throat for calling what Twitter and Facebook did "suppression" but no one would/could then provide an accurate description of their behavior. They just really didn't like the word "suppress."
|
United States44113 Posts
On April 16 2022 03:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 02:49 LegalLord wrote:
Censorship and "marketplace of ideas" are not really very compatible concepts, and there seems to be a whole lot of cognitive dissonance in assuming they are.
Pick one. Either censorship (under whatever banner people like to hide it, e.g. removing hate speech) is a good thing, or we should let ideas win out in an environment of free speech. Most people very much seem to like the former, they just want censorship to be marketed under some more friendly-sounding word or something. It's the same thing as the point I made with the Hunter Biden laptop. People jumped down my throat for calling what Twitter and Facebook did "suppression" but no one would/could then provide an accurate description of their behavior. They just really didn't like the word "suppress."
My issue was the claim that a story all of us heard about in detail at the time had been in some way suppressed by Twitter not entertaining it.
|
yeah, you don't get to claim a story was suppressed when in fact it was wide reported on, and then abandoned when Republicans turned to the "the dog ate my homework" defence when asked for details.
|
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there is still no information/meat from the whole laptop thing right? There are no documents, no anything right?
|
On April 16 2022 04:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there is still no information/meat from the whole laptop thing right? There are no documents, no anything right?
AFAIK, nope. Doubt they'd pass digital forensic requirements if they did show up all of the sudden.
|
I wouldn't trust guiliani or any other "kraken" members with buying toilet paper
and i honestly question the mental acuity of anyone bringing anything with any of those clowns mixed in
|
On April 16 2022 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:
yeah, you don't get to claim a story was suppressed when in fact it was wide reported on, and then abandoned when Republicans turned to the "the dog ate my homework" defence when asked for details.
I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well?
I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it."
Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!"
We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window?
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 16 2022 00:40 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 00:18 NewSunshine wrote:
Reminder that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You're free to express that you think the local flying squirrels in your area should be inducted into the KKK, but don't be surprised when you get your ass lumberjack-tossed the fuck out of that space afterward.
How many arguments did we have to have about cakes to establish that private businesses should have the ability to do anything they want? But now Twitter is engaging in suppression of free speech. I didn't know Twitter was a government fixture. Last I checked, it was a (shitty) private business that can make decisions about what it will allow in its venue.
And let's not act like Musk wants in just to right some political wrongs, the dude is a megalomaniacal billionaire, and accruing more capitalism victory points like this is the only way you can approach feeling something anymore. The framing of this issue as "private companies have freedom" and "consequences for your speech" is always a way of concealing that the true intent is to remove particular ideas from the means of discourse (i.e. Twitter). This framing is always brought up, and it's never a slam dunk. Just state your true goal: to remove particular ideas from the discourse, or in other words, to suppress speech. WombaT at least pinpointed the actual point being made: that the free marketplace of ideas is a bad idea.
To elaborate somewhat further, although anyone vaguely familiar with my postings on the matter.
As per regulation I’m really more concerned with misinformation than dumb or bigoted opinions. The latter it’s really up to a platform to draw whatever lines in the sand, or for other individuals to determine what is desirous.
That said I have the luxury to not being particularly afflicted by bigoted speech, at least at a group identity level.
To take one example I recall seeing some footage shared years ago purporting to show French Muslims in Paris rioting. Given the clear intent of who and why this was being shared I did some digging and the footage was (iirc) from 7 years older and from Tel Aviv
There’s no great suppression of speech for something to be flagged as bullshit. There’s no particular view or ideology that’s being gagged by a ‘actually this isn’t showing what it purports to’.
Well there is, it’s people either intentionally or otherwise sharing this mislabelled video to stoke anti-Muslim sentiment. That particular ideological position is suppressed, perfectly fairly in my opinion.
How one implements this, sure that’s a challenge in and of itself.
I think demarcation between opinions and indisputable facts is perfectly doable and desirable.
I’m not against a free marketplace of ideas, but ideas stem from observations on reality, and if the latter is a complete unregulated disaster then what discourse is built upon that will be suspect too.
It’s a borderline Wild West currently, there’s neither accountability or visibility for people spewing endless bollocks out on the internet. There’s also fuck all to really guide people at the consumption end.
Not everyone has the skillset, time or inclination to fact check everything, there should be some base standard of ‘ok this is a thing, what do we feel about it’ from which ideological discussions stem.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 16 2022 02:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 00:40 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 00:18 NewSunshine wrote:
Reminder that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You're free to express that you think the local flying squirrels in your area should be inducted into the KKK, but don't be surprised when you get your ass lumberjack-tossed the fuck out of that space afterward.
How many arguments did we have to have about cakes to establish that private businesses should have the ability to do anything they want? But now Twitter is engaging in suppression of free speech. I didn't know Twitter was a government fixture. Last I checked, it was a (shitty) private business that can make decisions about what it will allow in its venue.
And let's not act like Musk wants in just to right some political wrongs, the dude is a megalomaniacal billionaire, and accruing more capitalism victory points like this is the only way you can approach feeling something anymore. The framing of this issue as "private companies have freedom" and "consequences for your speech" is always a way of concealing that the true intent is to remove particular ideas from the means of discourse (i.e. Twitter). This framing is always brought up, and it's never a slam dunk. Just state your true goal: to remove particular ideas from the discourse, or in other words, to suppress speech. WombaT at least pinpointed the actual point being made: that the free marketplace of ideas is a bad idea. Its incredible that you both are attacking capitalism as well as free speech while trying to support capitalism and free speech. The free marketplace of ideas being a good thing is literally one of the only lessons we've learned from even the greek times.
I invoked the phrase because it’s the stock go-to riposte to any talk of even self-imposed regulation of the commercial internet, not because I don’t believe in the core concept.
I just don’t think you get a free marketplace of ideas if the sole pre-requisite is ‘people can say whatever they want’, without certain additional caveats and mechanisms.
As the free market can apparently solve every economic problem and make folks’ lives universally better if unimpeded, so too can making these big media aggregators unrestricted bastions of free speech above all other principles.
Speaking of the geek times I mean, even people zealously committed to the open source ethos will expunge or at least ostracise people who are misbehaving in that space.
Edit - Ok you said Greek times lmao, my bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
