|
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 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?
There are certainly docs authenticated by the NYT and other MSM outlets. I personally think there is "meat," but I was warned by the mods for discussing it so I won't go further.
On April 16 2022 03:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 03:15 Introvert wrote: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.
The fact that you all heard about it shows that the suppression attempts are counterproductive. They only draw attention to the ideas being suppressed, and drive people further into the view that what is being suppressed is worth considering. Another reason political speech suppression is a bad idea.
On April 16 2022 02:28 NewSunshine 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. 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.
The problem is that many times, when people call an idea "shitty" such that it should be moderated/suppressed, they will tend to conflate their factional political allegiances with legitimate moderation. For example, the notion that the Hunter laptop story should be suppressed, or the Wuhan lab leak idea should be suppressed, had its basis in factional political disagreement/opposition. In other words there are many times when people believe an idea can be legitimately suppressed/moderated, when in fact they merely strongly disagree with the idea politically.
Only things like violence and obscenity are subject to "legitimate moderation" in my eyes.
|
On April 16 2022 08:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +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? There are certainly docs authenticated by the NYT and other MSM outlets. I personally think there is "meat," but I was warned by the mods for discussing it so I won't go further.
What do these docs show? What exactly is the implication of what we have seen so far?
|
I hear and agree with some of the anti-moderation voices here, but what is the solution?
Surely you guys don't want the government to force these companies to do whatever the government wants, like stop moderation?
|
On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +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?
People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
|
|
|
On April 16 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote: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? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) [i]prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression. Generally its called moderated is it not? I guess TL is supressing ad bots and so on, but you make it sound so dramtic. You also act like there was something to the story that was being peddled, it was not "the lap top exists' it was "the laptop contained evidence of hunters illegal activity, the deepstate, and joe bidens corruption". None of ehich has came to pass despite the heros of draining the swamp having it for a year. And nothing more swampy than naming your son in law to handle the middle east and then have him get 2bn investment right after. The fantasies about Biden are not even as bad as the realities of the Trumps. And yet the aelf righteousness is palpatable.
Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended.
|
On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote: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? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either. And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision?
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote: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? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either. And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
I think it’s certainly apt to call that suppression.
The question is whether it was appropriate or not, and if the likes of Twitter or Facebook have been judicious in this regard, or whether they should be the arbiters.
I’ve seen enough missteps done on a seemingly ad hoc basis to be rather skeptical.
When implemented well, I do like the flag/label/redirect to alternative sources approach. Simply blocking access or sharing of things feels rather heavy-handed, especially if the platform ends up being wrong about it being bollocks or not
|
On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote: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? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Generally its called moderated is it not? I guess TL is supressing ad bots and so on, but you make it sound so dramtic. You also act like there was something to the story that was being peddled, it was not "the lap top exists' it was "the laptop contained evidence of hunters illegal activity, the deepstate, and joe bidens corruption". None of ehich has came to pass despite the heros of draining the swamp having it for a year. And nothing more swampy than naming your son in law to handle the middle east and then have him get 2bn investment right after. The fantasies about Biden are not even as bad as the realities of the Trumps. And yet the aelf righteousness is palpatable. Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended.
It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation.
There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post.
On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote: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? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) [i]prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either. And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression. Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision?
Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse.
|
What makes the pressure campaign “artificial”? It’s not like people are pretending they have a problem with OAN…they genuinely have a problem with OAN. Welcome to the free marketplace of ideas.
|
On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote: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? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Generally its called moderated is it not? I guess TL is supressing ad bots and so on, but you make it sound so dramtic. You also act like there was something to the story that was being peddled, it was not "the lap top exists' it was "the laptop contained evidence of hunters illegal activity, the deepstate, and joe bidens corruption". None of ehich has came to pass despite the heros of draining the swamp having it for a year. And nothing more swampy than naming your son in law to handle the middle east and then have him get 2bn investment right after. The fantasies about Biden are not even as bad as the realities of the Trumps. And yet the aelf righteousness is palpatable. Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended. It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote: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? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) [i]prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either. And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression. Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse.
So it's suppression by consumers voting with their wallet? And the company listening? What should be done to combat such suppression? Should it be combated?
|
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote: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? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Generally its called moderated is it not? I guess TL is supressing ad bots and so on, but you make it sound so dramtic. You also act like there was something to the story that was being peddled, it was not "the lap top exists' it was "the laptop contained evidence of hunters illegal activity, the deepstate, and joe bidens corruption". None of ehich has came to pass despite the heros of draining the swamp having it for a year. And nothing more swampy than naming your son in law to handle the middle east and then have him get 2bn investment right after. The fantasies about Biden are not even as bad as the realities of the Trumps. And yet the aelf righteousness is palpatable. Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended. It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote: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? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated.
That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here.
On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their [i]end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed
I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed.
|
On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote: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? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either. And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression. Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision?
I think of things like Twitter and FB differently. Cable stations aren't places of public discussion in the same way these platforms (used to) say they were. It's automatically curated in the sense that only some people get to speak. That being said, I suspect that many of these deplatforming type moves that are made are not actually financially beneficial ones, but that there is either outside astroturf (which left wing activist groups have been much better at) or internal pressure from employees that makes its way up. I doubt anyone would drop DTV if they kept OAN but I bet people dropped them when OAN was removed.
***
As to the other poster who said it was "content moderation." That phrase is avoided for more than one reason, but certainty no one would use it now because it would give the idea a bad name. They "moderated" a story about the contents of a device we now know are authentic. It doesn't speak well to these companies ability to decide what is and is not reliable.
Comparing the Biden story to ad bots is quite frankly ridiculous but really funny.
|
On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression.
Okay, but in that caseif I think your ideas are abhorrent and *don't* believe in the free marketplace of ideas, am I not entitled to use my wallet to suppress your ideas?
You appear to agree that should be my right, because you don't think the government should stop me.
And isn't the logical conclusion then simply to move to a different platform? And if you can do that, are your ideas really being suppressed?
|
On April 17 2022 02:58 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote: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? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either. And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression. Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? I think of things like Twitter and FB differently. Cable stations aren't places of public discussion in the same way these platforms (used to) say they were. It's automatically curated in the sense that only some people get to speak. That being said, I suspect that many of these deplatforming type moves that are made are not actually financially beneficial ones, but that there is either outside astroturf (which left wing activist groups have been much better at) or internal pressure from employees that makes its way up. I doubt anyone would drop DTV if they kept OAN but I bet people dropped them when OAN was removed. *** As to the other poster who said it was "content moderation." That phrase is avoided for more than one reason, but certainty no one would use it now because it would give the idea a bad name. They "moderated" a story about the contents of a device we now know are authentic. It doesn't speak well to these companies ability to decide what is and is not reliable. Comparing the Biden story to ad bots is quite frankly ridiculous but really funny.
That's an interesting viewpoint. At the end of the day, Twitter and Facebook aren't places of public discussion any more than TL.net is. They are private companies providing a place for people to post content. I'd much prefer if they *were* a place of public discussion, because the government would be forced to do a *much* better job of regulating hate speech (at least over here in Europe) than Twitter and Facebook's rather laissez faire attitude until someone complains.
That said, I do see some issues. What makes Twitter and Facebook public space and TL.net not? What about reddit? TikTok? 4chan? Stormfront? I don't really see anything categorically different between Facebook and 4chan, except size.
|
On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression.
What you are describing is the free marketplace of ideas. What you are advocating for is a regulated marketplace of ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
