Social media censorship roundup
I'll put it all here so you can ignore it if you don't care.
Yesterday, alternative site Gab, which says it will not censor anything unless the government says it cannot be published, prohibited all porn from its site (which is not unusual) and published many tweets saying they did it because porn is bad for you.
Today, Twitter suspended several journalists for linking to the Pensacola shooter's manifesto.
Oh dear! We cannot offend anyone.
this thread has been incarcerated for it's own protection
It appears now it's always election season.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey
tweeted that
"Twitter is funding a small independent team of up to five open source architects, engineers, and designers to develop an open and decentralized standard for social media. The goal is for Twitter to ultimately be a client of this standard."
Excellent and forward-thinking.
"Like Mastodon, except we own it."
"Twitter is funding a small independent team of up to five open source architects, engineers, and designers to develop an open and decentralized standard for social media.
Nerds. Social media according to Garp? More separation?
If the teacher makes them play nice in school there'll be hell to pay on the playground.
Instagram and its parent company Facebook are removing posts that voice support for slain Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani to comply with US sanctions, a
Facebook spokesperson said in a statement to CNN Business.
Wait. How do opinions violate sanctions?
They don't. So why is Facebook suppressing opinions? I'll tell ya....
I liked this part of the story:
As part of its compliance with US law, the Facebook spokesperson said the company removes accounts run by or on behalf of sanctioned people and organizations.
It also removes posts that commend the actions of sanctioned parties and individuals and seek to help further their actions, the spokesperson said, adding that Facebook has an appeals process if users feel their posts were removed in error.
Critical reading: "removing accounts run by or on behalf of sanctioned people and organizations" = required
"[removing] posts that commend the actions of sanctioned parties and individuals" = not required, but they do it "also".
Why?
Here's a real world example from 2019. 1) YouTube gets bad press because stories say it has Nazis. 2) YouTube advertisers panic. 3) YouTube modifies its algorithm to demonetize, and never recommend, all videos that contain the word "Nazi". 4)
All history-teaching and anti-Nazi videos that mention the word are demonetized and never recommended.
Worst possible outcome. But Youtube can't algorithmically detect which videos are Nazi and which are anti-Nazi. Way easier to just shadowban them all.
If anyone is interested, here is a very stylish and entertaining video that details the Youtube approach to keywords. They have thousands of keywords! The investigators found, for example, that a video title with the words "gay" and "homosexual" would be automatically demonetized, but "straight" and "heterosexual" were fine.
OUR DISCOURSE IS NOW CONTROLLED BY SHITTY ALGORITHMS. This is a disaster.
[YOUTUBE]ll8zGaWhofU[/YOUTUBE]
After Soleimani’s death, Instagram shuts down Iranian accounts
At least fifteen Iranian journalists have reported having their accounts suspended, according to the International Federation of Journalists. Government-owned and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-affiliated media agencies such as Tasnim News Agency, the Iran Newspaper and Jamaran News all had their accounts, with a combined hundreds of thousands of followers, removed entirely by Instagram. “This poses an immediate threat to freedom of information in Iran,” the International Federation of Journalists said in a statement.
But did it affect just the official Iranian news agencies? Of course not!
Iranian influencers, human rights advocates, and activists are also experiencing account shutdowns.
“It’s very widespread, it’s huge,” said Amir Rashidi, an Iran internet security and digital rights researcher based in New York, who watched on Instagram as account after account in Iran was shut down or had posts removed after users discussed the killing. “Every person I saw that posted about Soleimani on Instagram, almost all of their posts have been removed.”
Here's a real world example from 2019. 1) YouTube gets bad press because stories say it has Nazis. 2) YouTube advertisers panic. 3) YouTube modifies its algorithm to demonetize, and never recommend, all videos that contain the word "Nazi". 4) All history-teaching and anti-Nazi videos that mention the word are demonetized and never recommended.
YouTube has now censored the very anti-Nazi 1943 Frank Capra documentary "Prelude to War".
It was financed by the US Gov, shown to all soldiers.
The uploader was well-known internet archivist Carl Malamud.
It's important historical material.
The automatic ban survived a manual appeals process, which means it was reviewed by a human reviewer and judged to be in Violation of the YouTube Community Guidelines.
History, deny it, it never happened.
History, deny it, it never happened.
Read books (before the Firemen come).
It would appear, we are fucking this up.
It's a byproduct of AI's one-algorithm-fits-all solutions. Them's the rules, baby, no exceptions, no borderline cases, black of white, live or die. Law & order has no room for justice.
The Nerd City video worked out that the algorithms are being trained by offshore workers in third world countries.
Such as this one, I'm betting:
The automatic ban survived a manual appeals process, which means it was reviewed by a human reviewer and judged to be in Violation of the YouTube Community Guidelines.
Once the ban is human-reviewed, it's more permanent and will be used by the algorithm going forward.
So some human says, yup, has the word Nazi, ban it.
Some human, possibly ESL, from a different culture...
ESL = English as a Second Language, had to Google it, too many abbreviations and acronyms. :rollanim:
So maybe the free market isn't as free as it sounds.
😕
A free market has never existed and cannot exist, for the exact same reason that communism doesn't work in practice.
This social media weirdness is a prime example of this.
*A free market has never existed and cannot exist, for the exact same reason that **communism doesn't work in practice.
This social media weirdness is a prime example of this.
*Why?
**Why?
*Why?
**Why?
Because the first guy to come up with a workable, economic solution dominates their end of the market, and competition is at best desultory.
So you have stand alone BBSs. Some generate revenue, some do not.
Then Facebook comes along. Facebook generates revenue while charging its users nothing at all. (Myspace was an earlier, failed attempt at this) Then they own an entire sector of human behavior, which they analyze and sell to outside interests.
Then MeWe came along, had a better platform, promised to stop the abuses and censorship, but there wasn't enough market share left for them to do much of anything at all...They lacked the financial muscle to compete with Facebook. Nobody on the planet has the financial muscle to compete with Facebook.
This has now been proven to be true, so Facebook does whatever they please, knowing that folks like MeWe will not unseat them in the foreseeable future. You have no realistic choice in the market, as a consumer.
Youtube has the exact same monopoly, for the exact same reasons.
And they're not going to come up with actual solutions to blindly censoring entire topics, because there is no market pressure for them to do so.
There are numerous offline examples of the same problem.
So the market is an aristocracy in fact, and a meritocracy only in theory.
Also worth mentioning: If a free market as described were possible then, by definition, that's what we would have, because any attempt to dislodge it would be derailed by market forces.
Actually most people demand censorship from their social media. (The advertisers definitely do.)
There is very little anger over the things I've pointed out here.
Actually most people demand censorship from their social media. (The advertisers definitely do.)
There is very little anger over the things I've pointed out here.
Most people will viciously squash anything that moves out of their comfort zone. This is hardly news.
"Because the first guy to come up with a workable, economic solution dominates their end of the market, and competition is at best desultory."
As long as the monopoly isn't fostered, supported, or protected (or opposed) by the the big stick of government, why is this a problem? And how is this a negation of the free market? Fortune favors the bold.
#
"Then Facebook comes along. Facebook generates revenue while charging its users nothing at all. (Myspace was an earlier, failed attempt at this) Then they own an entire sector of human behavior, which they analyze and sell to outside interests."
I think they successfully cater to to what folks want.
If folks don't want their info sold, they can choose to not participate (don't use facebook).
If facebook doesn't lie to their customers, then what's the problem?
If they do lie: hold them to account, or stop associating with 'em.
#
"Then MeWe came along, had a better platform, promised to stop the abuses and censorship, but there wasn't enough market share left for them to do much of anything at all...They lacked the financial muscle to compete with Facebook. Nobody on the planet has the financial muscle to compete with Facebook."
It wasn't a lack of an infinitely fluid market (share), it was a lack of successful marketing. They didn't advertise themselves well or enough. If they had, and if indeed they had a better service, then they shoulda succeeded.
This is how free competition works. The fairness is in the ability to start the business, not in some guarantee of success. That is: the ant isn't prohibited from goin' up against the anteater, but his success or failure is entirely on him.
#
"This has now been proven to be true, so Facebook does whatever they please, knowing that folks like MeWe will not unseat them in the foreseeable future. You have no realistic choice in the market, as a consumer."
If customers are satisfied, or are not entirely displeased, with the service, and if no one else is steppin' up with a better product and successful marketing, then where's the complaint? How has the free market been short circuited?
#
"And they're not going to come up with actual solutions to blindly censoring entire topics, because there is no market pressure for them to do so."
Exactly. If the bulk of customers aren't particularly bothered by bias or advertising or censoring (which it really isn't), facebook won't change a thing. Why should they?
#
"So the market is an aristocracy in fact, and a meritocracy only in theory."
A free market is nuthin' but folks transactin' freely (aristocracy and meritocracy have nuthin' to do with it).
Reality is: we don't have a free market (except on the local level, sometimes) cuz our employees favor some and restrict others. They monkey around with supply and demand.
I just heard about MeWe this morning.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeWe_(social_media)
Me, I never heard of 'em before Luce's mention of them up-thread.
I take wiki with a grain, but, if the piece is accurate, they don't seem so down & out as Luce portrayed 'em.
"Because the first guy to come up with a workable, economic solution dominates their end of the market, and competition is at best desultory."
As long as the monopoly isn't fostered, supported, or protected (or opposed) by the the big stick of government, why is this a problem? And how is this a negation of the free market? Fortune favors the bold.
#
Why does it matter
how it's foster, supported, or protected?
"Then Facebook comes along. Facebook generates revenue while charging its users nothing at all. (Myspace was an earlier, failed attempt at this) Then they own an entire sector of human behavior, which they analyze and sell to outside interests."
I think they successfully cater to to what folks want.
If folks don't want their info sold, they can choose to not participate (don't use facebook).
If facebook doesn't lie to their customers, then what's the problem?
If they do lie: hold them to account, or stop associating with 'em.
#
They cater to what people will put up with in exchange for pictures of cats.
"Then MeWe came along, had a better platform, promised to stop the abuses and censorship, but there wasn't enough market share left for them to do much of anything at all...They lacked the financial muscle to compete with Facebook. Nobody on the planet has the financial muscle to compete with Facebook."
It wasn't a lack of an infinitely fluid market (share), it was a lack of successful marketing. They didn't advertise themselves well or enough. If they had, and if indeed they had a better service, then they shoulda succeeded.
They did have a better service. Their attempts at advertising were buried alive, as they lacked the financial muscle to saturate non-social media outlets enough to penetrate the market.
This is how free competition works. The fairness is in the ability to start the business, not in some guarantee of success. That is: the ant isn't prohibited from goin' up against the anteater, but his success or failure is entirely on him.
#
Yes. The first past the post has effectively a permanent monopoly. That's an aristocracy.
If customers are satisfied, or are not entirely displeased, with the service, and if no one else is steppin' up with a better product and successful marketing, then where's the complaint? How has the free market been short circuited?
#
It hasn't. It's just not a free market.
"So the market is an aristocracy in fact, and a meritocracy only in theory."
A free market is nuthin' but folks transactin' freely (aristocracy and meritocracy have nuthin' to do with it).
You have one choice. Choose freely.
I just heard about MeWe this morning.
They've been around for 9 years.
As a result of low/no traffic, they are effectively dark web.
ie, the people that go there now go there because they want to talk about things without being seen doing it.
"Why does it matter how it's foster, supported, or protected?"
Cuz free and managed are not synonymous.
#
"They cater to what people will put up with in exchange for pictures of cats."
And if the bulk or folks are satisfied with tradin' off info for cat videos, where's the problem?
#
"They did have a better service. Their attempts at advertising were buried alive, as they lacked the financial muscle to saturate non-social media outlets enough to penetrate the market."
Well, the wiki link paints a somewhat less bleak picture. As i say, though, i take wiki with a grain. Anyway, an uphill climb is not the same as 'no, you aren't allowed on the hill'.
#
"The first past the post has effectively a permanent monopoly. That's an aristocracy."
Ain't nuthin' permanent about a natural monopoly. It may last for generations but one innovation can topple it. And, no, you're misusing aristocracy. It's easier to lambaste 'em when you can paint them as privileged, but we both know that ain't the case.
Powerful? Yep. Protected? Mebbe. Aristocratic? No.
#
"It's just not a free market."
It's not, but not for the reasons you state.
#
"Choose freely."
And wisely.
"Why does it matter how it's foster, supported, or protected?"
Cuz free and managed are not synonymous.
#
Just so we're clear, you only object to government interference in the market?
Just so we're clear, you only object to government interference in the market?
When the big stick of gov is levied against, or used to to protect, someone in the economy (even with the best of intentions), this is rank interference that short circuits the market. Let buyers and sellers, in their endless, on-goin', transactions punish and reward. Take offenders to court, if you must, as last resort (let those decisions inform similar matters down the road [and keep the goddamned legislators under heel and away from the
marketplace).
My standard is simple: Do not knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprive, in part or whole, the other guy of his life, liberty, or property, and you can do as you like (in the bedroom, in the church, in business).
Sell whatever you like, as you like, be honest about what it is you're sellin', make a million (if you can).
When the big stick of gov is levied against, or used to to protect, someone in the economy (even with the best of intentions), this is rank interference that short circuits the market. Let buyers and sellers, in their endless, on-goin', transactions punish and reward. Take offenders to court, if you must, as last resort (let those decisions inform similar matters down the road [and keep the goddamned legislators under heel and away from the marketplace).
My standard is simple: Do not knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprive, in part or whole, the other guy of his life, liberty, or property, and you can do as you like (in the bedroom, in the church, in business).
Sell whatever you like, as you like, be honest about what it is you're sellin', make a million (if you can).
So is that a yes or a no?
I would take that as a yes.
I would take that as a yes.
👍🏻
👍🏻
But in our model (hell, in every model), there isn't any such thing as government interference, for the same reason privately-maintained monopolies don't matter.
By which I mean, the government is an intrinsic part of the market.
The US government is not really involved in the social media censorship question.
But if it were widely involved, it would make the problem far worse, by applying more ridiculous censorship, in more ham-handed ways.
We know this already. Social media just gets rid of everything with "Nazi" in it; an otherwise reasonable UK government goes a huge step further, and
fines a pug owner 800 pounds for making a joke about Nazis.
Sends police around to question the nature of tweets. Sometimes arrests joking tweeters and charges them.
The US government is not really involved in the social media censorship question.
But if it were widely involved, it would make the problem far worse, by applying more ridiculous censorship, in more ham-handed ways.
We know this already. Social media just gets rid of everything with "Nazi" in it; an otherwise reasonable UK government goes a huge step further, and fines a pug owner 800 pounds for making a joke about Nazis. Sends police around to question the nature of tweets. Sometimes arrests joking tweeters and charges them.
I think they know that. They DID try to get involved (Communications Decency Act), but found it to be unenforceable.
an otherwise reasonable UK government
Wait. What?
The UK government has never been reasonable. Incidentally, this probably didn't help the man's case:
Meechan was supported in court by by Tommy Robinson, former leader of far-right group the English Defence League (EDL).
As opposed to all the other governments we like so well. If we threw a dart at a globe, chances are the government it landed on would be actively limiting what sites people can visit and pawing through their searches, as much as possible.
Meechan was supported in court by by Tommy Robinson
If that had an effect on the outcome it is just that much more shameful.
As opposed to all the other governments we like so well. If we threw a dart at a globe, chances are the government it landed on would be actively limiting what sites people can visit and pawing through their searches, as much as possible.
The UK has
always liked to listen in on phones and the internet.
If that had an effect on the outcome it is just that much more shameful.
If you are arguing in court that the Nazi comments were taken out of context, or were a joke, then having Tommy Robinson show up isn't the best thing that could happen to you.
But in our model (hell, in every model), there isn't any such thing as government interference, for the same reason privately-maintained monopolies don't matter.
By which I mean, the government is an intrinsic part of the market.
If gov is an intrinsic part of the market (as regulator, for example [which is interference to my mind]) then the market is
managed, not
free.
And: I didn't say diddly about
privately-maintained monopolies. I mentioned, in passing,
natural monopolies
Would you like to know about
natural monopolies and why they're superior to the
artificial monopolies you get with managed markets?
I'll be glad to rant about it (I haven't had a good libertarian rant in a coon's age, so I'm well-primed).
To imagine that the outcome of a public trial would be affected by whom is in favor of the different sides is...
...a pretty solid argument for keeping government out of managing any social media, in any way
If gov is an intrinsic part of the market (as regulator, for example [which is interference to my mind]) then the market is managed, not free.
The government is not only a regulator, but a participant in the market.
I'll be glad to rant about it (I haven't had a good libertarian rant in a coon's age, so I'm well-primed).
Sorry, I've heard it before.
To imagine that the outcome of a public trial would be affected by whom is in favor of the different sides is...
...a pretty solid argument for keeping government out of managing any social media, in any way
I'm not disagreeing.
"The government is not only a regulator, but a participant in the market."
Yeah, it interferes up and down the line: as regulator, standard-setter, participant; as enforcer, as restrictor, as thief.
And the one thing it should be doin' (contract arbitration) it does poorly cuz it's mixed up in all the other nonsense I list above.
"The government is not only a regulator, but a participant in the market."
Yeah, it interferes up and down the line: as regulator, standard-setter, participant; as enforcer, as restrictor, as thief.
And the one thing it should be doin' (contract arbitration) it does poorly cuz it's mixed up in all the other nonsense I list above.
This is like saying a fish interferes with the ocean.
Technically true, but meaningless.
This is like saying a fish interferes with the ocean.
Technically true, but meaningless.
No, it's like sayin' a kid fucks around with an ant farm, instead of just leavin' 'em be.
It's worse though, cuz humans aren't ants to be farmed (but those folks who are supposed to be our employees often treat us, and our interactions, as such).
No, it's like sayin' a kid fucks around with an ant farm, instead of just leavin' 'em be.
It's worse though, cuz humans aren't ants to be farmed (but those folks who are supposed to be our employees often treat us, and our interactions, as such).
Has anyone told employers this?
Has anyone told employers this?
The employers (the private citizens) know the employees (the elected folk) are fuckin' around. Some care, many don't.
Domestication.
The employers (the private citizens) know the employees (the elected folk) are fuckin' around. Some care, many don't.
Domestication.
Naw, I mean employers.
Corporations. Small business. Whatever.
Humans are not meant to be farmed?
Humans are not meant to be farmed?
Only when makin' Soylent Green.
"The government is not only a regulator, but a participant in the market."
Yeah, it interferes up and down the line: as regulator, standard-setter, participant; as enforcer, as restrictor, as thief.
And the one thing it should be doin' (contract arbitration) it does poorly cuz it's mixed up in all the other nonsense I list above.
Not
it or
it's, the government is not singular, the government is an assembly of thousands of agencies, departments, and bureaus. You're making the mistake of thinking one knows what the other is doing when in fact they hardly know the other exists.
Not it or it's, the government is not singular, the government is an assembly of thousands of agencies, departments, and bureaus. You're making the mistake of thinking one knows what the other is doing when in fact they hardly know the other exists.
Companies are the same way, after a certain size.
The left tentacle never knows what the right tentacle is doing.
Some CEOs use that to make the tentacles compete.
Not it or it's, the government is not singular, the government is an assembly of thousands of agencies, departments, and bureaus. You're making the mistake of thinking one knows what the other is doing when in fact they hardly know the other exists.
Actually, gov is made up of thousands of individuals, employees, each and every one, all tasked supposedly to manage resources of one kind or another, each supposedly lent a certain amount of power to accomplish that management.
Shouldn't matter that this one doesn't know that one if all are equally pointed in the same direction and serve the same master.
The employees, elected and appointed, however, don't serve: they rule, and they do it under the umbrella of, hefting the Big Stick of,
government.
#
Companies are the same way, after a certain size.
Sure. Here's the difference: companies can't jail you if you object and decline to do business with 'em.
Some CEOs use that to make the tentacles compete.
Yeah, AT&T started that in the 80s. It worked out well, by which I mean "That was effectively the end of AT&T."
Same thing happened to Sears.
Sure. Here's the difference: companies can't jail you if you object and decline to do business with 'em.
You're technically correct. They have the government do that for them.
companies can't jail you if you object and decline to do business with 'em.
You're technically correct. They have the government do that for them.
I'll wait for you to foist up a single verifiable example of a company havin' the gov jail someone cuz that someone declined to do business with with that company...but I won't hold my breath.
I'll wait for you to foist up a single verifiable example of a company havin' the gov jail someone cuz that someone declined to do business with with that company...but I won't hold my breath.
Ever get caught driving without insurance?
Ever get caught driving without insurance?
If Progressive could have me arrested for not doin' business with Progressive, you'd have a point. But they can't, so you don't.
If Progressive could have me arrested for not doin' business with Progressive, you'd have a point. But they can't, so you don't.
You are forced to purchase a product in their industry. So they get to keep the same percentage of a market share that is mandate to buy that product as they had prior to the mandate.
In other words, as each state made it mandatory, everyone in the industry suddenly made more money.
So it counts, unless you split hairs for a living.
You are forced to purchase a product in their industry. So they get to keep the same percentage of a market share that is mandate to buy that product as they had prior to the mandate.
In other words, as each state made it mandatory, everyone in the industry suddenly made more money.
So it counts, unless you split hairs for a living.
So, if I go to trial (cuz I won't insure, won't pay fines, and keep drivin'): is it 'me vs the insurance company' or 'me vs the state'?
So, if I go to trial (cuz I won't insure, won't pay fines, and keep drivin'): is it 'me vs the insurance company' or 'me vs the state'?
You vs the state. It is a criminal action, not a civil one.
You vs the state. It is a criminal action, not a civil one.
Exactly: I offend against the state, not the business.
When I'm tried, and found guilty, the fine I pay is to the state: I pay no compensation to the business.
And, the final nail: if I have no car, then I don't have to buy insurance.
I get your point, but you're wrong.
Exactly: I offend against the state, not the business.
When I'm tried, and found guilty, the fine I pay is to the state: I pay no compensation to the business.
And, the final nail: if I have no car, then I don't have to buy insurance.
I get your point, but you're wrong.
Well, yes, I suppose if you have the picture of corporations being good guys, as opposed to mindless beasts, and the government being bad guys (as opposed to a different kind of mindless beast) you'd interpret things that way.
Well, yes, I suppose if you have the picture of corporations being good guys, as opposed to mindless beasts, and the government being bad guys (as opposed to a different kind of mindless beast) you'd interpret things that way.
The above ain't got nuthin' to do with my point.
Hey you guys, what's with the civil discourse? You're out of step with the internet, the nation, the world. :lol:
Hey you guys, what's with the civil discourse? You're out of step with the internet, the nation, the world. :lol:
I am banned from Facebook and all but two forums, this being one of them.
So I'm on my absolute best behavior.
I am banned from Facebook and all but two forums, this being one of them.
So I'm on my absolute best behavior.
And me: I don't give enough of a shit about the subject to get riled.
We can conclude: fear & apathy can make for a good simulation of civility.
And me: I don't give enough of a shit about the subject to get riled.
We can conclude: fear & apathy can make for a good simulation of civility.
Well, not so much fear as "if I get banned from the last two places, I might have to go outside," and nobody wants that.
Aversion. That's the word I'm looking for.
Well, not so much fear as "if I get banned from the last two places, I might have to go outside," and nobody wants that.
Aversion. That's the word I'm looking for.
😆
I stand corrected: 👍🏻
😆
I stand corrected: 👍🏻
It's all about branding.
It's all about branding.
Aversion plays better than
fear.
Aversion plays better than fear.
Well, yes. You can have an aversion without having fear, but not the other way around.
It's all about branding.
Wouldn't a tattoo be less painful?
That would show a lack of commitment.
Reddit "quarantined"
/r/Wuhan_Flu, which means you can read it but the "official word" is that it's ungood. (The irony that they call it "quarantining" is not lost.) Please overlook the
$150,000,000 investment a Chinese tech firm made in Reddit months ago. Surely that would not affect how they manage the site. LOL.
(Also, aside from the crappy management and moderation, Reddit is slowly turning into shit as teens invade it. That is just my opinion)
Zero Hedge was banned from Twitter for Wuhan-related journalism. It has been noticed that many social media bans come shortly after Buzzfeed calls a PR department, and says they are going to run a story on a user, and "would you like to comment"? In this case it came after Buzzfeed wrote a story alleging that Zero Hedge doxxed a Chinese researcher.
Zero Hedge disagrees.I read the whole Zero Hedge article. IMHO, they are engaged in incitement that doesn't help the situation and deserved a temporary ban.
First, knowing where the virus came from--specifically, whether it was a natural species-jump or an accidental/intentional leak from a biological weapons lab as Zero Hedge alleges--is necessary in the long-term, but it doesn't make a difference right now when it comes to containing and treating it. Righteous anger and due punishment can only prevent future problems, not deal with current ones.
Second, let's say this one scientist did have "answers" to give. Those answers would have to be legitimately received/extracted by people with power to have any meaning. If I, an angry American citizen, call his personal number a thousand times a day until he relents and says, "You're right! I totally developed this virus and it escaped!"... then what? I call my Senator? I fly over and punch him as he so richly deserves? I post his confession to the internet so other people can go over and punch him, too? I create an outcry so big that the Chinese government is shamed into publicly scapegoating him--which they may have done anyway, and may actually be a tiny part of the truth that they are happy to concede, and in any case can spin a thousand ways to their own purposes?
Third, it's completely disingenuous to claim "the contact information was public so it isn't doxxing." The word fire is just a word, too, until it's shouted in a crowded theater. Context matters. Zero Hedge told their hordes of followers that this one person needed interrogating, and posted his name, picture, address, and phone number precisely because they know the response would be much lower if their readers were expected to seek out that information on their own. The main feature of doxxing is that it bypasses the natural selection of lethargy--and that's precisely what Zero Hedge intended to happen here.
General rule of thumb: if it's a "call to action" of any kind, it's not news, it's incitement. The only judgment call to be made is whether that incitement is beneficial to the individual, society, or neither.
I didn't read the article and I'm not going to. Doxxing is bad. People who do it should be drawn and quartered. If you support it you're an asshole.
You are right, partially IMO -- just my few quibbles --
If I, an angry American citizen, call his personal number a thousand times a day until he relents
You speak Mandarin! I'm not surprised.
told their hordes of followers
As a writer, I think you should carefully reconsider both this description of what Zero Hedge did, and who their readership is. (It includes Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey)
Especially if your readership is interested in an unorthodox point of view -- and what worthwhile readership isn't? You would not want them, and your relationship to them, described that way.
and that's precisely what Zero Hedge intended to happen here
I don't share your superpower of immediately knowing secret intentions in detail.
But I think, if harassment was the intent, they would put the guy's number right on Twitter. Instead, they put it at the very bottom of a very long post, at what appears to be an excellent vector of information. I figured the point was to encourage better original reporting.
Righteous anger and due punishment can only prevent future problems, not deal with current ones.
I'm okay with only preventing future problems.
And it's still a gray area, innit? If I think a gummint official is lying, or, say, I dunno, Tucker Carlson - surely I can give out their office number. But
definitely not their home number.
Seems to if the guy they are calling out did indeed create this virus and has been working with it before it escaped, he might know some weaknesses, some vulnerabilities of the virus, maybe even the best way to kill it. If that's true, then that information should be extracted from him and distributed. If it's not true, then this is a time wasting red herring.
Yeah I'm sure THIS is the way to get things done. LET'S HARASS THE SANDY HOOK PARENTS! LET'S HARASS THE DELEGATES WHO DIDN'T VOTE FOR BERNIE! HARASS A SENATOR SO HE WON'T CONFIRM KAVANAUGH! HARASS A VACCINE SCIENTIST UNTIL HE ADMITS THAT VACCINES CAUSE AREA 51 NANOBOTS TO CREATE CHEMTRAILS!
Who said harass him, if the story is true then the health people should find out everything he knows about the virus.
But that's not what the story's author urged. He said,
Something tells us, if anyone wants to find out what really caused the coronavirus pandemic that has infected thousands of people in China and around the globe, they should probably pay Dr. Peng a visit.
"Anyone" is not "the appropriate officials." And if, as Undertoad seems to be implying, the appropriate officials might in fact be readers of Zero Hedge, and the author only meant to tell
them specifically to investigate this claim, then surely those well-informed health officials are capable of finding this guy's public contact information. The author put it directly in the article because he wanted everyone to have it. And the only use that 99.99% of his readership could have for that information is harassment.
I guess I'm the 0.01% since I could glean useful information from that detail without being interested in harassment.
IMHO, in this instance Clod nailed it. It's a propaganda piece designed to encourage others to extort information from an individual insider, by putting that person on the defensive, without that person's information being filtered by the Chinese government.
The article is heavy on argument for a containment breach and the wording "(accidentally or not)" suggests it's targeting people predisposed to conspiracy theories with a motivational message. The article is light on argument for a natural mutation of the zoonotic virus; also, light on appeals for help from the expert.
Good propaganda pieces do have useful information to be gleaned; but, only that which steers the target audience in a desired direction. Not everyone will be swayed by it, sometimes not even most, as a handful who are willing to act may be all that's needed.
I guess I'm the 0.01% since I could glean useful information from that detail without being interested in harassment.
Yeah, me too. But I'm too lazy for direct action and I can see there would be people like
this guy with an axe to grind.
Zuck started drawing a line in the sand!
Free expression — not 'censorship' — will best protect democracy, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg tells Utah audience
In his appearance Friday, Zuckerberg said Facebook had deployed artificial intelligence and other means to detect and quickly remove content promoting terrorism and child trafficking or inciting violence. But he said a more worrisome trend was at hand.
"Increasingly, we're getting called in to censor a lot of different kinds of content that makes me really uncomfortable," Zuckerberg said. "It kind of feels like the list of things that you’re not allowed to say socially keeps on growing."
"And I’m not really OK with that," he said.
"The people who are criticizing and saying that more stuff needs to be censored are never the people who are actually at risk of being censored themselves," Zuckerberg said. "They have their ways of getting stuff out."
"I feel like someone needs to stand up for giving everyone a voice," he said.
The man behind the curtain will be very happy when he can blame the A/I Robot Overlords.
Zuck started drawing a line in the sand!
Free expression — not 'censorship' — will best protect democracy, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg tells Utah audience
Well, let's hope this one dude who started a website for rating which college chicks are hot is the best person to be deciding the fate of civilization and survival of human life on the planet. Cross your fingers! I'm sure it's probably best to let one random dude decide these things. . . . That makes sense, right?
I read the whole Zero Hedge article. IMHO, they are engaged in incitement that doesn't help the situation and deserved a temporary ban.
First, knowing where the virus came from--specifically, whether it was a natural species-jump or an accidental/intentional leak from a biological weapons lab as Zero Hedge alleges--is necessary in the long-term, but it doesn't make a difference right now when it comes to containing and treating it. Righteous anger and due punishment can only prevent future problems, not deal with current ones.
Second, let's say this one scientist did have "answers" to give. Those answers would have to be legitimately received/extracted by people with power to have any meaning. If I, an angry American citizen, call his personal number a thousand times a day until he relents and says, "You're right! I totally developed this virus and it escaped!"... then what? I call my Senator? I fly over and punch him as he so richly deserves? I post his confession to the internet so other people can go over and punch him, too? I create an outcry so big that the Chinese government is shamed into publicly scapegoating him--which they may have done anyway, and may actually be a tiny part of the truth that they are happy to concede, and in any case can spin a thousand ways to their own purposes?
Third, it's completely disingenuous to claim "the contact information was public so it isn't doxxing." The word fire is just a word, too, until it's shouted in a crowded theater. Context matters. Zero Hedge told their hordes of followers that this one person needed interrogating, and posted his name, picture, address, and phone number precisely because they know the response would be much lower if their readers were expected to seek out that information on their own. The main feature of doxxing is that it bypasses the natural selection of lethargy--and that's precisely what Zero Hedge intended to happen here.
General rule of thumb: if it's a "call to action" of any kind, it's not news, it's incitement. The only judgment call to be made is whether that incitement is beneficial to the individual, society, or neither.
Zero Hedge is good for this sort of thing.
It's basically a boring version of Alex Jones.
China tells citizens to only share coronavirus news from state-run media, or face up to seven years in jail
While their intentions in this specific case may be good, they just gave the rumormongers a ton of credibility.
Right, one of the questions we need to deal with as a society is, shall we allow the shit-stirrers and conspiracy theorists on our social medias?
I say, sure. Everything is a theory until proven; you have to consider all the thoughts, in order to parse out what is correct.
Which is also somewhat true about news agencies we don't prefer. I may not like my neighbor's mean dog; but if I hear him barking frantically at 2am, that may still be useful information I can use.
Alex Jones spent time talking about some dude named Jeffrey Epstein, and alleged that this rich guy had a pedophile island, and he'd fly powerful rich people to it. It was deep conspiracy theory... at the time...
Right, one of the questions we need to deal with as a society is, shall we allow the shit-stirrers and conspiracy theorists on our social medias?
I say, sure. Everything is a theory until proven; you have to consider all the thoughts, in order to parse out what is correct.
Which is also somewhat true about news agencies we don't prefer. I may not like my neighbor's mean dog; but if I hear him barking frantically at 2am, that may still be useful information I can use.
Alex Jones spent time talking about some dude named Jeffrey Epstein, and alleged that this rich guy had a pedophile island, and he'd fly powerful rich people to it. It was deep conspiracy theory... at the time...
Well, not only that, but there is the practical side of it: "How the hell do you stop rumors?"
If the army can't do it, nobody can. In fact, the more you try to suppress rumors, the more they propagate.
Alex Jones spent time talking about some dude named Jeffrey Epstein, and alleged that this rich guy had a pedophile island, and he'd fly powerful rich people to it. It was deep conspiracy theory... at the time...
Alex Jones also incited harassment of a Sandy Hook parent until they committed suicide.
But I guess you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
Alex Jones also incited harassment of a Sandy Hook parent until they committed suicide.
But I guess you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
There is really nothing good to be said about the man.
He's a vulture of the worst sort.
There is really nothing good to be said about the man.
I will say, he is entertaining.
Have you seen the video where he says, in all seriousness, "God told me to.. DESTROY. JOE. ROGAN."
Unfortunately we've hit this point in our society where being attention-grabbing makes you a source of truth. Maybe that's the way people have always been.
Unfortunately we've hit this point in our society where being attention-grabbing makes you a source of truth. Maybe that's the way people have always been.
That may be true but at least it was on a micro level where they would gather locals to run somebody out of town... unless they were black then lynch them.
But with social media and attention whore news, the mobs are a lot bigger like Charlottesville.
Netflix reveals the nine times a government has requested they take something down.
Singapore: 5
New Zealand: 1
Vietnam: 1
Germany: 1
Saudi Arabia: 1
They don't operate in China.
The
actual list from Netflix
• In 2015, we complied with a written demand from the New Zealand Film and Video Labeling Body to remove The Bridge from the service in New Zealand only. The film is classified as “objectionable” in the country.
• In 2017, we complied with a written demand from the Vietnamese Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information (ABEI) to remove Full Metal Jacket from the service in Vietnam only.
• In 2017, we complied with a written demand from the German Commission for Youth Protection (KJM) to remove Night of the Living Dead from the service in Germany only. A version of the film is banned in the country.
• In 2018, we complied with a written demand from the Singapore Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to remove Cooking on High, The Legend of 420, and Disjointed from the service in Singapore only.
• In 2019, we complied with a written demand from the Saudi Communication and Information Technology Commission to remove one episode—“Saudi Arabia”—from the series Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj from the service in Saudi Arabia only.
• In 2019, we received a written demand from the Singapore Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to remove The Last Temptation of Christ from the service in Singapore only. The film is banned in the country.
• In 2020, we complied with a written demand from the Singapore Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to remove The Last Hangover from the service in Singapore only.
If that's the only thing Germany ever requested to have removed, then it's only because Netflix had already done some serious self-policing. They've gotten a little better in just the last few years, but Germany's censorship laws are still surprisingly draconian.
Bacefook has hired Jennifer Williams a former Fox and Friends producer to help "curate" the news, whatever that means.
Reddit banned several moderators of already-quarantined subreddit /r/The_Donald, and posted a strange set of rules for whom they would like to be the next moderators.
Understand, as a private place they can manage political matters however they like; but this brazen micro-management of a forum is ridiculous. I'm like, that's not how this works.
Separately, Reddit announced that they would ban users who "consistently upvote policy-breaking content within quarantined communities."
Good lord. This means they're doing data-mining to locate users they don't like!
My theory is that Reddit, which started out very okay, has lost its mojo over the last year or two -- due to an influx of low-quality users. I'm talking about teenagers, low-IQ shitposters, brazen keyboard warriors. Better quality users are departing, because why deal with all of that?
All these types are attracted to Reddit because its lack of real community; how it treats anonymity, how it fails to protect communities and instead tries to protect itself. How it does not support real conversation.
Reddit's answer to this is to create and enforce its own personal and, BTW, corporate cancel culture.
Bold strategy, let's see if it pays off.
I try to stay off of politics forums, and other such BS. The only thing I look at on Reddit is the BBQ and smoking meat forums. This morning I was looking at Fark.com and every tab I clicked on was either about trump, or Bernie. I haven't been back.
Reddit banned several moderators of already-quarantined subreddit /r/The_Donald, and posted a strange set of rules for whom they would like to be the next moderators.
Understand, as a private place they can manage political matters however they like; but this brazen micro-management of a forum is ridiculous. I'm like, that's not how this works.
Separately, Reddit announced that they would ban users who "consistently upvote policy-breaking content within quarantined communities."
Good lord. This means they're doing data-mining to locate users they don't like!
My theory is that Reddit, which started out very okay, has lost its mojo over the last year or two -- due to an influx of low-quality users. I'm talking about teenagers, low-IQ shitposters, brazen keyboard warriors. Better quality users are departing, because why deal with all of that?
All these types are attracted to Reddit because its lack of real community; how it treats anonymity, how it fails to protect communities and instead tries to protect itself. How it does not support real conversation.
Reddit's answer to this is to create and enforce its own personal and, BTW, corporate cancel culture.
Bold strategy, let's see if it pays off.
You can do shit like this all you like, just so long as you know that corrections happen.
Bacefook has hired Jennifer Williams a former Fox and Friends producer to help "curate" the news, whatever that means.
Curate is a technical term that means responsibility without authority, aka "you got left holding the bag."
How are the rules strange?
ETA: Legit asking, I have no idea what their rules are for that or any other subreddit
New applicants for moderator must:
- Be in good standing with our Safety team (e.g., no account suspensions in past year)
- Have at least 1000 total karma
- Have at least 500 karma in the_donald
- Not have more than 500 karma in quarantined subreddits (aside from the_donald) or subreddits banned for rule violations (not including communities banned for being unmodded)
- Have at least 1 month experience moderating a subreddit in good standing
- Not be an alt of any ineligible accounts
Perhaps not so "strange", in the sense that these might be rules they would come up with, but certainly "strange" in that these rules were constructed just for the management of this one subreddit.
I've participated in a quarantined sub before (not that one; I've never participated in the_donald) and my opinion is that the quarantining of the sub I was in was absolutely arbitrary, and almost certainly just a bias on the "Safety team"'s behalf. Reddit now intends to expand its quarantining program. Let's see if it pays off.
As they grow, they're just discovering the tragedy of the commons.
Those look like a pretty good rule set, assuming the karma numbers are good (I have no reference point), and as long as there exist places to get the one month experience if it expands.
Let's see if it pays off.
By "pays off" do you mean "drives away their user base"?
More in the meme sense, intended to be ironic/sarcastic (click the image for more information)
Count Dankula recently received a "strike" on YouTube for his original "Nazi Pug" joke video...
...which YouTube itself took down last year.
Also, and I find this to be absolutely stunning, let's say you wanted to see that video to figure out what the fuss was about.
Please compare the
Google results for the search "count dankula pug video"
and the
Bing results for the same search
Bing is useful, Google is not, because Google is extending YouTube's censorship practices to the video results of its own searches.
Not censorship by Instagram, but censorship OF Instagram:
A Wisconsin teen had a severe respiratory illness; doctors told her she was tested too late in the cycle to determine it, but that it had likely been COVID-19.
She posted about it on Instagram.
Her school then complained to the local sheriff. A police Sergeant went to her house and ordered her to delete her posts or he'd arrest her and/or her parents.
Sheriff and Sarge are now being sued by the parents -- for nominal damages, but more importantly, for the injunction saying they can't be cited or arrested for posting on Instagram.
This is entirely a First Amendment issue. Let's stop this country from becoming the UK.
https://www.will-law.org/will-sues-marquette-county-sheriff-for-free-speech-violation/
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2020/04/16/coronavirus-wisconsin-sheriff-threatened-jail-over-instagram-post/5145087002/That's more like turning the lights on in a crowded theater...
A Wisconsin teen had a severe respiratory illness; doctors told her she was tested too late in the cycle to determine it, but that it had likely been COVID-19.
Doctors are saying that tests do exist to determine someone was infected. But tests to determine that one
is infected and other tests to determine that someone
was infected remain mostly unavailable in America.
Tests are available in other nations whose leaders decided to address this problem. Those nations are able to recover from this pandemic faster. But doctors repeatedly say they do not understand why those tests are not readily available in America.
Both tests are essential to end a pandemic. Testing could have determined if Amyiah had been infected. But not in Wisconsin? That is essential news that all decent (moderate) Americans would understand. Our health care industry is still denied materials required to diminish or eliminate Covid-19.
Apparently a Sherriff fears we might learn.
Tests would have been available if a government was led by someone with more than a 30 second attention span.
Was he a Republican Sherriff? A relevant question now that so many have become extremists. Extremists (ie Fox News) even declared Covid-19 as fake news in March when Amyiah was getting infected.
85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Someone with a 30 second attention span should be understand that much.
As of today over 3,400,000 tests have been performed in America
The young lady in question WAS tested
Her test came back negative, and the medical speculation was that she had COVID, but the test was taken after her viral load had already dropped
Antibody tests completed development about three weeks ago and are just now coming online
Was he a Republican Sherriff? A relevant question now that so many have become extremists
Marquette County Sheriff Zybert is a DemocratMany flavors of extremist out there. I really wish folks could join Team America or Team Humanity instead of this Red Blue dichotomy because it's easy to re-elect extremists like Trump and McConnell when Democrats insist all Republicans are evil and treat them that way.
Many flavors of extremist out there. I really wish folks could join Team America or Team Humanity instead of this Red Blue dichotomy because it's easy to re-elect extremists like Trump and McConnell when Democrats insist all Republicans are evil and treat them that way.
Well, after being called every name in the book by republicans since 1979, it is
really easy to forget civility.
Just putting that out there.
I definitely hear you. I’d just like the country not to burn after we beat these assholes. Watching the Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine posts on Facebook isn’t giving me much hope though.
I definitely hear you. I’d just like the country not to burn after we beat these assholes. Watching the Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine posts on Facebook isn’t giving me much hope though.
Frankly, I don't see the country remaining a single political entity much longer. A couple of years, maybe.
Marquette County Sheriff Zybert is a Democrat
Correction: it wasn't this Marquette County Sheriff who was responsible here... apparently they have multiple. It was a Sheriff named Joseph Konrath, who is a Republican.
Frankly, I don't see the country remaining a single political entity much longer. A couple of years, maybe.
Which puts me in a kinda shitty position, cuz it's all about me. My rural neighbors to the North want to leave NY and join PA because they hate taxes, good roads, and good schools. I need to live in a rural place but actually believe government can have a role and miss Republicans with common sense. A rural "liberal" will have trouble finding a moderate welcoming place to settle when secession becomes wholesale.
Evil is a strong word, but it is close to what you have to call the entire Republican membership in both houses of Congress when they vote in lockstep with President Pennywise and his cabal of an administration.
I really wish folks could join Team America or Team Humanity instead of this Red Blue dichotomy because it's easy to re-elect extremists like Trump and McConnell ...
Team America does exist. And has been repeatedly defined. They are also called moderates.
My rural neighbors to the North want to leave NY and join PA because they hate taxes, good roads, and good schools.
Reminds me of a dentist who lived on an island between the township and a borough - a shore community. He was known to be an extremist. And insisted this neighborhood be incorporated by the borough because it had lower taxes. That borough outrightly refused. He then decided, like any good extremist, to take revenge.
So that dentist collected his used needles, carried them out on his boat, and spread them in the water so that needles would wash up on beaches.
Being an extremist, he did not know needles have serial numbers. They traced those needles back to him.
Plenty of Timothy McVeighs are out there. They don't like something. So those others must be evil.
Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events in California, New Jersey, and Nebraska after consultation with state governments.
To what extent is this an astro-turfing event vs a ground swell of opposition? I know people are frustrated, hell I'm frustrated but too much too soon will kill. Alex Jones is involved so we know it's about being stupid, but I initially assumed it was a Russian amplification thing rather than an ALEC amplification thing. On a bright note there were bible toting end-timers in Endicott yesterday. Everybody hears the message they want to hear I guess.
Nobody will agree with me but
Imagine being told to stay home and your job and salary would be protected by the government and then the government didn't protect your job or salary
Then imagine that instead government went on a micromanagement spree preventing you from taking a solitary walk in a local park
Then imagine that, locked in at home, all you had to complain about this was social media. Then imagine the government and private industry colluded to make sure your social media group was deleted
You don't have to tax your imagination very hard, it's happening
You're not wrong. People are being financially ruined by this leading to further concentration in big businesses vs small. The small business I work for got a payroll protection loan which will cover the gap in my reduced hours.
Why the open carry threat though?
The small business I work for got a payroll protection loan which will cover the gap in my reduced hours.
Imagine the payroll protection plan only covered part of it and then money for the next part was held up in government by a leader who, when asked what she is doing in the meantime, showed off her wildly expensive designer ice cream in her wildly expensive designer freezer
Now imagine that this plan for economic help, developed during a time of crisis, with input from multiple co-equal branches of government with a long history of bitter opposition, satisfied everyone completely, covered all the shortfalls and risks experienced by individuals and businesses, was delivered immediately, and with no friction or burden to anyone now or in the future. Imagine all the people working to put this plan together got everything right the first time.
Imagine there were no problems at all with with the development and delivery of such a plan. You can't, can you? I can't either.
It doesn't tax one's imagination very hard to think that there will be problems, and that the difficulties will be unevenly distributed. It's not taxing at all to imagine that the ones that gain the most attention will be the dramatic ones like comparing some fool's ice cream to some other person's bare cupboard.
There will be problems, or room for improvement, depending on your perspective.
But on the topic of the title of the thread, I find the term "censorship" a bit of a stretch when applied to the actions of non-governmental entities. Especially companies where participation is voluntary, unlike living in our society here (though some will say that's voluntary too, "love it or leave it"). Lots of social media platforms have terms and conditions, including the cellar. Enforcing those terms and conditions, including the deletion of member input ... I can see how the term censorship could come to mind. I just don't think it's the best description. The effect is the same, but the context is different in fundamentally important ways.
Equal respect for the rules, shared understanding of reality (that phrase is awkward to say the least, I'm leaving it in for now, read for emotional impact if necessary), having a debate about the relative importance of competing pressures is the optimal scenario, but some will want to skip that part and get right to the torches and pitchforks.
Again, not evenly distributed and the aggrieved parties are the ones that make more noise than the satisfied ones.
There will be problems, or room for improvement, depending on your perspective.
I totally agree
there is no make-it-all-better button
you may apply that same standard to dear leader
Censorship applies to everyone
First amendment protection applies to US government
I don't think it's censorship if I can still say it, just not here.
Those people whose groups were deleted, what's to keep them from repeating their message on a different platform?
I have been exercising my imagination to encompass your premise
Then imagine the government and private industry colluded to make sure your social media group was deleted
(emphasis mine)
and I was overtaxed. I can't do it. What government is colluding with Facebook to delete these groups? Probably not the ice cream lady, and all the other hands on levers of power are hauling in the other direction.
Those people whose groups were deleted, what's to keep them from repeating their message on a different platform?
That is not the definition of censorship
When television networks prohibited the display of homosexuality as part of their standards and practices, that was censorship even though one could show it elsewhere
What government is colluding with Facebook to delete these groups?
The groups are removed from Facebook on the instruction of state governments in, so far, three states
If I can still say it, I'm not censored. That's just my opinion man.
When does the absence of something become censorship? When I bite my tongue and refrain from saying "Jane, you ignorant slut."? Or when I post something and it's deleted?
What's the difference between abiding by community standards and self censorship? Editing and censorship? Is the enforcement of a site's terms and conditions censorship? What if I want to target a particular group with my ads and that group's not selectable? Have I been censored?
When I don't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, am I being censored?
It's censorship if the rule your breaking is not in place beforehand.
snip--
The groups are removed from Facebook on the instruction of state governments in, so far, three states
bold claim. Ben Shapiro and Oliver Darcy and Mike Davis think so, and lots of people who flock in the same twitter murmurations. I haven't seen any messages from any state governments saying this is what they did. Have you? Or from Facebook? That Facebook says they've followed instructions from the state government to censor their users?
Just thinkin out loud here for a minute, skip it if you want.
I'll focus on the social media aspect in a minute, but the whole social distancing behavior, stay apart to help reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus, this practice is on I have adopted, as have many many other people. The promotion of this practice has been... what's the word... formalized into a guideline, not a law. But the force of laws has been discussed and applied, (I don't know the names of the laws...:/) like being in a place during an emergency where I don't belong. It's ..."like" trespassing, but that's definitely not the right word. Improperly being in a controlled area during an exceptional time, an accident scene, a crime scene, the beach during a hurricane, you get the idea.
The enforcement of these guidelines is widely accepted in many other situations but this situation is exceptional for a number of reasons, reasons that make it harder to do and harder to see and harder to understand. The risk is diffuse and invisible and delayed. That kind of threat is hard for us humans to perceive. And I have a hard time keeping my vigilance at a high level without the kinds of inputs that normally keep me on my toes. This coronavirus pandemic is not scary when I look out my window and see the sun shining on the trees and grass and birdies and flowers. Why not go out, why not enjoy this pretty spring day? Why not share that enjoyment with others? BZZZZZZZT!
Ah, that's when my intellectual brain remembers what I've been told is the best practice--not gather together out with a bunch of my fellow two legged virus targets.
Promoting this idea, the social distancing requires effort, it's an effort to accomplish, the promotion is a necessary part of the success of the effort.
Governments, *at all levels*, are promoting it. Social media platforms are promoting it.
I think the quality and value of this idea of social distancing, and crucially,
the motivation for the guidelines, is what is in dispute between, say, me, and the people saying their right to freely assemble is being abridged. Both sides are looking at the same thing, and seeing different things. I challenge the other side by saying my reasoning, increased chance of not transmitting the virus is more important, they say differently. I would also challenge them by reminding them that there are no rights without responsibilities. All our rights are exercised in a framework, all of them have limits of some kind. We have rules, right?
The value of breaking the rules is kind of proportional to the proportion of those who follow the rules. If traffic is gridlocked, and one guy pulls into the breakdown lane and zooms along at 70 mph, he gets a big benefit. That benefit tapers off pretty quickly when a second guy does it, then five more, then when everybody's doing it, we just have a somewhat wider traffic jam.
I don't have a problem with a social media platform, say Facebook, removing posts that advocate activity that is counterproductive to public health. Enforcing terms and conditions / censorship; potato / tomato.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
yeah, read it already.
I concede that you're using the word properly in context.
I think you're finessing the conflation of our First amendment and the word censorship.
from your link:
Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.
So censorship is happening. Why should I care? Are you suggesting a law has been broken? I do care about laws. Is someone being harmed?
It appears Mr Darcy was inexact in his wording and we do not have evidence that the states
requested takedown. Only that they "communicated"
"Communication" is vague but one state is denying they ASKED for the takedown
Thank you for the correction
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/politics/facebook-covid-shutdown-protests/index.html
Facebook has come under fire as groups organizing anti-stay-at-home protests have popped up all over the platform. Stone said Facebook would take down posts created through the Facebook Events feature that promote events in California, New Jersey and Nebraska. Other Facebook posts, including Facebook groups about the protests, might not be removed.
Alyana Alfaro Post, a spokesperson for New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, told CNN that the governor's office and Facebook had been communicating about the issue but said, "The governor's office did not ask Facebook to remove pages or posts for events promoting lifting the provisions of the governor's stay-at-home order."
So censorship is happening. Why should I care? Are you suggesting a law has been broken? I do care about laws. Is someone being harmed?
Why you should care: because free expression is wildly valuable to a society and defending it is a keystone principle of, at least, the USA
Am I suggesting a law has been broken: no lol
Is someone being harmed: yes; the censored people, the people who wish to read the censored information, and anyone else who may benefit from the content being available
Why you should care: because free expression is wildly valuable to a society and defending it is a keystone principle of, at least, the USA
Am I suggesting a law has been broken: no lol
Is someone being harmed: yes; the censored people, the people who wish to read the censored information, and anyone else who may benefit from the content being available
I strongly disagree with your position.
Propagation of disinformation is harmful. Censorship of harmful information is helpful.
And now we're back to my point
I think the quality and value of this idea of social distancing, and crucially, the motivation for the guidelines, is what is in dispute between, say, me, and the people saying their right to freely assemble is being abridged. Both sides are looking at the same thing, and seeing different things. I challenge the other side by saying my reasoning, increased chance of not transmitting the virus is more important, they say differently. I would also challenge them by reminding them that there are no rights without responsibilities. All our rights are exercised in a framework, all of them have limits of some kind. We have rules, right?
removing the social media content is what happened.
why it was removed is not clear and is in dispute.
one narrative is fb is doing the bidding of the tyrannical states.
one narrative is fb is enforcing their terms and conditions.
both narratives involve censorship (I'm self censoring my urge to surround that with scare quotes)
How YOU feel about whichever narrative you think is most likely correct is 100% on you; exactly the same for ME.
But we don't agree on what's really behind the takedowns.
Propagation of disinformation is harmful. Censorship of harmful information is helpful.
Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?
But we don't agree on what's really behind the takedowns.
You're assuming all my thoughts and beliefs, and then debating with whatever you figure they must be. It's ridiculous, stop it.
Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?
Totally tail-posting on whatever the debate is here, but "who decides" is a good question, there's not a good answer, and that's where all our problems begin. We can't decide on what to do because we can't decide what's real or not. And there's brain-numbingly stupid examples of this. Exxon knew about global warming 40 years ago, but because they were so good at spreading misinformation, we're still (somehow) arguing about this.
I thought, briefly, that a global pandemic would be a sobering moment for us to all agree on a basic premise, but that's gone out the window. And in typical fashion-- not by direct contradiction but by the "I'm just asking questions, is that a crime?" method, aka muddying the waters. But SOMEBODY has to be a "source" of information. We literally can't survive without information to inform our decisions.
snip--
You're assuming all my thoughts and beliefs, and then debating with whatever you figure they must be. It's ridiculous, stop it.
Oh! Come and see the censorship inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?
Evidently you did when you censored Henry. :eyebrow:
Well if every time I talk, I'm talking on behalf of the Cellar, instead of just conversationally, I'll do my conversational talking elsewhere.
See y'all later
Just put a disclaimer in your byline, I'd hate to catch you chatting on Facebook regularly.
Well if every time I talk, I'm talking on behalf of the Cellar, instead of just conversationally, I'll do my conversational talking elsewhere.
See y'all later
Knock it off, you can't take your ball and go home, you are home.
The primary reason I gave up being a mod is people put implied authority to my statements unlike every other swinging dick, and that was a drag.
You don't have that option, until people grasp that you can be told to fuck off like everyone else it's your albatross.
This is stupid. Nobody thinks you're the Cellar.
You've got a strong personality, well-formed opinions, and you put yourself out there to take a lot of heat on difficult positions. That's all you, baby.
We wouldn't have it any other way.
Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?
Which leaves you and Facebook in a difficult situation. I don't believe Facebook ever bothered to address that question until it became glaringly obvious that there reputation (and more important, proftis) was as stake. I believe their guidelines were ad hoc - after the fact - too late.
Did you ever sit down to write out a doctrine or benchmark a structure? A framework to decide what is acceptable verses what is 'yelling fire in a theater'? I don't believe many people in your position do that.
Yes, plans completely break down with first conflict. But the fewer who have plans are more easily able to adapt to changing conditions and unexpected events. Do any good guidelines or examples exist from which one might construct such a framework?
Did you ever sit down to write out a doctrine or benchmark a structure? A framework to decide what is acceptable verses what is 'yelling fire in a theater'? I don't believe many people in your position do that.
I feel like he has.
There are only THREE rules of The Cellar.
Do not try to break the law using the Cellar.
Do not try to break the Cellar.
Do not be "intolerably irritating".
The last one is censorship by this thread's standards, and I've disagreed with several cases of its use, but do not disagree with the necessity of the rule or UT's (or designated mods) right to enforce it.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-hq-used-facebook-ads-to-deceive-jeremy-corbyn-during-election-campaign-grlx75c27?fbclid=IwAR1xjq5y4TkbUksyQ91AuNR3wWfl8MfEDXJESwjQEnRuiLI1bOd0aFd5jHw
Jeremy Corbyn's own party deceived him into thinking they were running the ads he wanted to run, by micro-targeting the Facebook campaign to be seen by, essentially, only him and those closest to him. The rest of the population was seeing different ads.
Wow.
I'm not cool with UT self-censoring on this and other issues. We need his unique voice here.
Evidently you did when you censored Henry. :eyebrow:
Yeah, about that...
Toad didn't censor me: I took myself out of the discussion.
Well if every time I talk, I'm talking on behalf of the Cellar, instead of just conversationally, I'll do my conversational talking elsewhere.
See y'all later
If you took yourself out on my account: you ought to reconsider.
It wouldn't be the cellar with out Undertoad.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2EAsAl-WAAQIVhudQi4Dij1xueq3CNEsKggR7WcFKUjnREzWXNiWWZCmM
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies on Thursday, days after Twitter called two of his tweets "potentially misleading."
The draft executive order being prepared by the Trump administration tests the boundaries of the White House's authority. In a long-shot legal bid, it seeks to curtail the power of large social media platforms by reinterpreting a critical 1996 law that shields websites and tech companies from lawsuits. Ok, let's talk about this.
Trump just wants a fight. Fights attract attention, aka his oxygen. The reason for the fight is to gain attention. Winning this fight is irrelevant and unlikely. It's more ammunition for his Endless War of Aggrievement. Like any old blunderbuss, it doesn't matter what you stuff down the barrel, the hot air will shoot it out. And if there's one thing he has a superabundance of is hot air.
There's no First Amendment argument here, no sane person will say there is. He just wants to distract our attention from his abject failure as a good leader, or even as a good person. It will resonate with those who also feel aggrieved and entitled.
You are right about this. The current state of the Supreme Court gives me pause but Roberts isn't a loon.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-hq-used-facebook-ads-to-deceive-jeremy-corbyn-during-election-campaign-grlx75c27?fbclid=IwAR1xjq5y4TkbUksyQ91AuNR3wWfl8MfEDXJESwjQEnRuiLI1bOd0aFd5jHw
Jeremy Corbyn's own party deceived him into thinking they were running the ads he wanted to run, by micro-targeting the Facebook campaign to be seen by, essentially, only him and those closest to him. The rest of the population was seeing different ads.
.....I suggested a while back the white house staff should do this with T-Rump's Shitter account.....
It seems like he'd be easy to trick.
I think he's skilled at smelling disloyalty. He's got lots of practice there.
Oooookaaaay..... let's /keep/ talking about this.
At 12 a.m. Thursday, President Trump retweeted a video in which a supporter says, “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.”
At 12:53 a.m. Friday, he followed this up by referring to riots in Minneapolis and saying, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
From The Washington Post
Twitter for its part, flagged the tweet in a way that hid the tweet from at:realdonaldtrump and required the reader to click a link to reveal it. The action by Twitter also prevented anyone from liking the tweet or retweeting it without comment. Stymied by this, the same tweets were posted by the at:POTUS account, and they received the same treatment by Twitter.
Twitter appeared unfazed by the threat. This morning it flagged a tweet by Mr. Trump suggesting that protesters in Minneapolis could be shot — a message that the company said violated policies against glorifying violence. (The tweet, which is still online, is accessible only after clicking through a warning message.) That came after the social network fact-checked a tweet this week by Mr. Trump about mail-in voting — “we knew from a comms perspective that all hell would break loose,” a Twitter executive explained — and has continued labeling tweets by others as potentially misleading.
From The New York Times
Twitter Places Warning on a Trump Tweet, Saying It Glorified Violence
The president’s tweet, which implied that protesters in Minneapolis could be shot, could not be viewed without reading a brief notice, and users were blocked from liking or replying to it.
....
These actions by Trump... Are they desperation? Ignorance? True belief? wtf? I think this fits perfectly with Trump's past behavior where he's said "Don't believe what you hear and see, only believe what I tell you." (I paraphrase). He and those he's gathered around him reflexively revert to their mother tongue under stress: doublespeak.
First Amendment scholars said Friday morning that Mr. Trump and his allies had it backward and that he was the one trying to stifle speech that clashes with his own views.
“Fundamentally this dispute is about whether Twitter has the right to disagree with, criticize, and respond to the president,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “Obviously, it does. It is remarkable and truly chilling that the president and his advisers seem to believe otherwise.”
This fight with Twitter is definitely stressful for Trump.
Remember that this is the guy who was pushing for the death penalty when the Central Park Five got set up by the NYPD and the prosecutors. There will be no balance where African Americans are concerned, this is his core value.
He is a totalitarian by nature so it will continue until removal. Twitter shows confidence in the judiciary.
First Amendment scholars said Friday morning that Mr. Trump and his allies had it backward and that he was the one trying to stifle speech that clashes with his own views.
THIS. Conservative examples of "free speech violations" often consist of *more speech* having been *added* to their speech. They want the freedom to say anything, and nobody being allowed to respond, in other words-- free speech for ME. It's an indefensible position. If the thought leaders of "right leaning" culture had any guts, this proposition could not survive, much less take hold as a movement-defining idea.
Conservatives are able to hold power despite diminishing support, only because they are more aggressive, and more successful in their gamesmanship-- as in, overshooting their response to media bias claims, therefore skewing media treatment incrementally to their own benefit. Aggressive and successful-- as in, power-grabbing the census, the redistricting, the voter rolls.
It's no surprise they are freaking out about the proposition of increased vote-by-mail. They EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE OUT LOUD that increased voter turnout equals guaranteed Republican losses. We never again need to question their "win by cheating" strategy-- they admit it. They own it.
Free speech for ME.. power for ME.. a system that works for ME. It's disgusting. It's not what we're told America stands for.
I think he's skilled at smelling disloyalty. He's got lots of practice there.
He said he hires "the best people," and then those people invariably turn on him.
There's only two possible explanations for that.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]lW6oVMbl1hs[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Searching for the truth, that is facts that confirm my gut feeling, is hard.
Easier to just go with what facebook and the guys at the bar tell me.
Trump has stumbled a couple times this year. Pointing it out is acceptable but this mocking/jeering that's going on right now will make his supporters double down rather than think.
They're going hard on Bacefook right now. I'm not doing well with conversation.
From here:
Accusations of liberal bias in social media have reached a new level as President Donald Trump started another kind of Twitter war last week — one with the social media platform itself. In response to a fact-check advisory that the company posted on one of his tweets on Tuesday, Trump responded, “Social Media Platforms totally silence conservative voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down.” The White House then issued an executive order Thursday attempting to punish social media companies for political bias.
The result is the emergence of a dangerous digital activism gap, a gap that conservative movements understand and have increasingly used to their advantage.
Yet, Trump and his backers are wrong that social media shuts out those on the right. In fact, it's the opposite: Use of these platforms heavily favors conservatives.
This was the clear lesson that emerged from my research on thousands of social media posts and interviews with digital activists across the political spectrum. Social media increases power disparities due to social class and organizational resources. So, rather than favoring progressive activists, as the media spotlight on hashtag movements like #MeToo or #BlackLivesMatter can suggest, the underlying dynamics of these societal differences enable conservative messages and voices to gain a large advantage.
My outrage at his abuse of the language continues to be matched by my exhaustion from looking for and failing to find the reality of his hurts and the strain of trying to encompass his hypocrisy of accusing others of the wrongs he himself commits. It has not diminished. The doublespeak from Trump continues full force.
from here:
The “free speech debate” isn’t really about free speech
[SIZE="4"]
The “free speech debate” isn’t really about free speech
The debate over “cancel culture” is about something real. But it’s not about free speech.[/SIZE]
Please give this article about twenty minutes of your focused attention. It's an excellent article. Here are my first thoughts about it:
1 -- reality is just a story we tell to each other.
2 -- not every thing is knowable from first hand empirical evidence.
3 -- we find people we trust, to some degree, for some reason, and give them credence.
(his thoughts)
What’s happening now seems novel because we are currently seeing a wave of social justice activism that seeks to redefine how we understand appropriate debate over these topics, sometimes even pushing to consign to the margins views that may have seemed tolerable in the past. These advocates can and have overreached, and should be criticized when they do. But on the whole, their work is aimed not at restricting freedom but at expanding it — making historically marginalized voices feel comfortable enough in the public square to be their authentic selves, to exist honestly and speak their own truths.
then our dialog disintegrates into cancel culturing each other's sources. naw, just dismissing the argument of the other by dismissing the source. we very often can't agree on first principles. on definitions. on what story is to be told. Sad.
I like this bit:
(his thoughts again)
It helps to think of this debate as taking place on a spectrum. Social justice advocates think the bands of acceptable opinion and arguments shouldn’t be narrowed, precisely, but rather pushed to the left — shifted to include formerly excluded voices from oppressed communities and to sideline voices that seek to continue their exclusion. Their critics think the traditional bands of debate are, broadly speaking, correct, and that we’d all be worse off if the social justice advocates succeed in moving speech norms in their direction.
Please read and respond, I'd love to know how you think and feel about this issue.
Interesting quotes, I'll read it after work.
Mirriam-Webster updates dictionary definition in order to pwn the right
not strictly social media censorship but it's such a wild 1984ish item
Jesus.
I suppose they can't help being offended by everything either. Poor flakes.
Wull that's the thing, nobody is actually offended. The woke team controls power by controlling language.
My Twitter feed showed "The Advocate", historically the nation's leading gay culture news source, using "sexual preference" in articles three weeks ago.
Twitter and Facebook censor NY Post story
Same source also got emails from Saddam admitting he had WMDs.
Someone claims to have emails that say what your campaign wants them to say. Apparently Russian hackers have been successful again. Twitter and Facebook would also have to censor that 'equally credible' source.
They censored because Trump's private attorney, Rudy Giuliani made some subjective (unsubstantiated) claim. Giuliani has long been an incredulous source.
Twitter Deletes Tweet From Top Trump Coronavirus Adviser Undermining Mask Use
Twitter decided to outright delete a tweet from one of President Donald Trump’s top coronavirus advisers, Scott Atlas, that alleged widespread use of masks was not effective to slow the spread of COVID-19. As of Sunday, Twitter had removed the tweet and replaced it with a note that reads “This Tweet is no longer available.” A spokesman for Twitter confirmed that the tweet “was in violation of our COVID-19 Misleading Information Policy” that “prohibits sharing false or misleading content related to COVID-19 which could lead to harm.”
found it
I don't understand they last bit
A CDC review in May found that mask usage led to no significant reduction in influenza transmission.
Here is the studies review
From the Abstract "Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
UT's note, a more recent COVID-specific study found masks very useful.
"... there was nobody left to speak for me." Alt-left shocked to find silicon valley censorship doesn't just apply to alt-right, comes for them too as they are banned from Twitter and Reddit:
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-andre-damon
