Social Media Censorship

[Williamsmith]

I have some thoughts regarding the explosion of social media censorship in light of the banishment of Alex Jones from the most influential platforms and more recently the Twitter ban on Ron Paul but I can’t respond right now.

Im not approaching this as an apologist for anything Alex Jones says as conspiracist in Chief nor the racist cartooning that appeared associated with Ron Paul’s Twitter account. I’m looking at the broader notion of social media platforms being more of an editorial animal and with that a vary coveted tool of political movements.

With the exception of pornography and incitement to violence....... how much censorship by our so called social media “platforms” ...should a free society accept?

[iris lilies]

Wait, I know nothing about this
ron Paul controversy. I will have to read up on it. Back later.

[LDAHL]

I think every media platform should set their own standards and let the market decide. They are, after all, private entities. People who can’t abide one viewpoint or other should simply migrate to where they’re more comfortable.

I don’t understand this neopuritan urge to silence your concept of wrong-thinking; which seems to be seeping into the larger culture from the perpetually offended campus.

Hopefully there will still be a market for uncensored content for those unafraid of seeing something they might disagree with.

[ApatheticNoMore]

weren't Facebook algorithms already very close to censorship by another name anyway? Ok so it wasn't a total ban, but if something other than order of posting and whom you decide to follow (or even a criteria you set) dictates which posts you are likely to see ... what would you call that? And no you don't even know the criteria it does use. It's secret.

[jp1]

Like Ldahl points out, they're private companies, not common carriers. They can sensor to their hearts content. And it's hard for me to shed tears for a "news" site that does things like promote a ridiculous conspiracy theory about a pizza store that results in a "hero" showing up at that store with a rifle.

[ToomuchStuff]

I have some thoughts regarding the explosion of social media censorship in light of the banishment of Alex Jones from the most influential platforms and more recently the Twitter ban on Ron Paul but I can’t respond right now. Why not, censored?

Im not approaching this as an apologist for anything Alex Jones says as conspiracist in Chief nor the racist cartooning that appeared associated with Ron Paul’s Twitter account. I’m looking at the broader notion of social media platforms being more of an editorial animal and with that a vary coveted tool of political movements.

With the exception of pornography and incitement to violence....... how much censorship by our so called social media “platforms” ...should a free society accept?

Well, what did YOU accept? Did you agree to the TOS here or there? Do you think you have the rights to tell someone what they can accept/reject/say, etc? There are a shitload of things I cannot ****ing say here, that are neither crappy pornography, or an incitement of violence. Some things will appear here (surprisingly) while others appear blocked by the filters. I expect Alan will realize I am doing this as an example.
You have freedom of speech, but do you have that freedom in my house? Do I not have the freedom to associate or not with you? Do reporters have freedom of the press, or is it their employers, the ones that own the presses? (the old saying freedom of the press, as long as you own the press)

I expect where you run into censorship more, is actually if they self publish (their own press). Then if search engines start banning them, wouldn't that be more censorship then these contract platforms that sheeple use?

[razz]

While I can understand the opposition to censorship in principle, where does one draw the line if the social media is used to incite hate, meet the state of thought that responds to that hate leading to actions triggering from that hate or intolerance or abuse. ..

I would love to live in a world where everyone loved and supported all good all the time. BUT when does misinformation submitted knowingly on social media trigger inappropriate behaviour that ultimately harms society and its residents?

[JaneV2.0]

Apparently, Portland's Voodoo Donuts is the latest target of the Qanon crowd.
I wonder if this is part of Russia's disruption campaign.

[Alan]

Censorship in the public sphere is tricky. Often it boils down to a desire to not be offended, although the problem is that someone is always offended.

I believe that if someone is actively trying to advocate harm or being extremely rude and get kicked off social media for being an asshat, that's not censorship, it's a dis-invitation to use that public space for nefarious purposes. If someone gets kicked off social media for sharing opinions that someone finds offensive, while not advocating harm or being extremely rude to an individual or group, that's censorship.

The owners or administrators of those public social media spaces have a responsibility to provide a safe and pleasurable venue for their customers/members and are free to enforce the environment they would like to promote and that means that some people will be dis-invited and some will be censored and we will each see that action differently based upon our own biases. I think consistency is the key, if you're going to take action against one extreme point of view or action, you'd better also take action against the opposite extreme point of view or action.

[iris lilies]

While I can understand the opposition to censorship in principle, where does one draw the line if the social media is used to incite hate, meet the state of thought that responds to that hate leading to actions triggering from that hate or intolerance or abuse. ..

I would love to live in a world where everyone loved and supported all good all the time. BUT when does misinformation submitted knowingly on social media trigger inappropriate behaviour that ultimately harms society and its residents?
The line to draw is not a hard and fast one, and is debated in the courts. Generally, there is more respect for the concept of free speech in the United States than in other developed countries. Keeping big government from limiting freedoms is important here.

Our friend Wikkipedia says that speech many consider “hate speech” is free from government interference, except in the unusual cases where the hate speech is intended to “incite imminent lawless action.”

so, speech that is mean or hurtful, actions that express thoughts such as burning a cross near the homes of African
Americans, words that show intolerance, hate, disrespect for a person or a group due to their race or religion or etc.—all are legal and free from government interference.

That is here, and that is the way it should be.

Other countries take a bigger role is quashing the expressions of thought from their citizens. I find that chilling.

[LDAHL]

The line to draw is not a hard and fast one, and is debated in the courts. Generally, there is more respect for the concept of free speech in the United States than in other developed countries. Keeping big government from limiting freedoms is important here.

Our friend Wikkipedia says that speech many consider “hate speech” is free from government interference, except in the unusual cases where the hate speech is intended to “incite imminent lawless action.”

so, speech that is mean or hurtful, actions that express thoughts such as burning a cross near the homes of African
Americans, words that show intolerance, hate, disrespect for a person or a group due to their race or religion or etc.—all are legal and free from government interference.

That is here, and that is the way it should be.

Other countries take a bigger role is quashing the expressions of thought from their citizens. I find that chilling.

Ever since they made Socrates drink the hemlock, there have been people taking it upon themselves to “protect” us from various speech in the public sphere. I think there’s more danger in handing them the power to do so than in anything some addled crank, Russian bot or Chinese sock puppet has to say. So I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist in that respect.

As Alan pointed out, however, the private sphere is different. The owner makes the rules. In my own house, if I don’t like your crackpot round Earth theories or insults to the Chicago Cubs, I’m well within my rights to eject you. I can also walk away from what I find offensive. I don’t feel it to be my or anyone else’s responsibility to force others to shut up.

[razz]

Good point about freedom when choosing what is appropriate when it is privately owned.

To Il's post about freedom of speech;
if one does hateful things targeting others, cross-burning as an example, is that one then accessory/guilty/responsible if another party feeling validated and legitimized in their hate because of initial cross-burning actually commits violence against that same target?

[Alan]

Good point about freedom when choosing what is appropriate when it is privately owned.

To Il's post about freedom of speech;
if one does hateful things targeting others, cross-burning as an example, is that one then accessory/guilty/responsible if another party feeling validated and legitimized in their hate because of initial cross-burning actually commits violence against that same target?
I believe ones actions are singular. If you become enraged over an action I take and then go out and do an evil deed, I am guilty of enraging you but you are guilty of your response.

[iris lilies]

Good point about freedom when choosing what is appropriate when it is privately owned.

To Il's post about freedom of speech;
if one does hateful things targeting others, cross-burning as an example, is that one then accessory/guilty/responsible if another party feeling validated and legitimized in their hate because of initial cross-burning actually commits violence against that same target?

If you mean your question in the legal sense, no, the original cross burner bears no responsibility for the subsequent actions of others, assuming his cross burning was not intended to whip up imminent violence. I think “intent” and “imminent” are important words in the legal case here.

If you mean your question in the ethical sense, sure, the initial cross burner bears some responsibility for putting hatefulness out into the universe and ethically is an influencer of subsequent cross burning actions. So, what do you propose the government should do in ths latter case?

[LDAHL]

Good point about freedom when choosing what is appropriate when it is privately owned.

To Il's post about freedom of speech;
if one does hateful things targeting others, cross-burning as an example, is that one then accessory/guilty/responsible if another party feeling validated and legitimized in their hate because of initial cross-burning actually commits violence against that same target?

No. Spouting hate of say, Republicans does not make you responsible for some nut shooting up a ball game. Otherwise we would have to lock up half the academic community and most of the New York Times editorial staff.

If you make feeling validation a crime, there will be no end to the tyranny you can justify.

[jp1]

So is someone responsible if they accuse the families of a mass shooting of being actors and then people dox them and threaten them with harm, up to and including murder, are they merely disgusting worthless human beings or are they responsible for the follow on threats made by their audience against the people whose children were murdered?

[razz]

So, what do you propose the government should do in ths latter case?

I wasn't aware that the government was involved in the discussion at all. Canada does have a 'Human Rights' process that has been abused. Has it solved all the problems of inappropriate behaviour? No. It has raised awareness which probably has been beneficial.

I thought that the complaint was against social media for judging and dis-inviting (like that phrasing) those who post hateful messages and misinformation that targets others unlike themselves. Was I reading all this incorrectly?

My question comes back to the generic: when do you draw the line on hateful behaviour? When do you withdraw your support for those agencies that enable hateful behaviour? When do you protest vigorously to indicate your disapproval rather than enabling by validating by passivity?

[iris lilies]

I wasn't aware that the government was involved in the discussion at all. Canada does have a 'Human Rights' process that has been abused. Has it solved all the problems of inappropriate behaviour? No. It has raised awareness which probably has been beneficial.

I thought that the complaint was against social media for judging and dis-inviting (like that phrasing) those who post hateful messages and misinformation that targets others unlike themselves. Was I reading all this incorrectly?

My question comes back to the generic: when do you draw the line on hateful behaviour? When do you withdraw your support for those agencies that enable hateful behaviour? When do you protest vigorously to indicate your disapproval rather than enabling by validating by passivity?

If this discussion is soley about what *I* would do on social media sites, I will say “it depends.” It depends on the site and its members as well as the poster and his words.

Maybe I will challenge the poster’s claims especially if no one else is rushing forward to do so. Maybe I will put that poster on “ignore”. I currently have one poster on Ignore on another forum, and that is very unusual for me. It is doubtful I would complain to a moderator about a poster’s words.

If the poster in question is posting a lot of hateful nonsense it is likely that a rush of people will get there before me to call him out on it and there is no need for me to add a “me too” message.

[Williamsmith]

With all due respect to the reactive censorship being discussed, I was thinking along the lines of whether or not the tech companies have crossed the line from being just platforms to being publishers. In other words, they are destinations which pick winners and losers among the publishers, drive their own agenda, censor nefariously through guarded data research that they do not share with their customers ( both consumers and providers of content.). Should they be broken up?

After all, in who’s interest is it to quash “racist” dialog? How is the public supposed to learn who is what if their speech is being banned? The tech companies believe it is in the interest of their stockholders to not allow “offensive” postings, but how is this affecting the way we perceive the world when so few “platforms” exist.

[razz]

With all due respect to the reactive censorship being discussed, I was thinking along the lines of whether or not the tech companies have crossed the line from being just platforms to being publishers. In other words, they are destinations which pick winners and losers among the publishers, drive their own agenda, censor nefariously through guarded data research that they do not share with their customers ( both consumers and providers of content.). Should they be broken up?

Since they are private companies providing a service that enjoys enormous usage, should they be broken up any more than the local furniture making shop? Because a company has a lot of customers who freely made the choice, are those companies then losing their freedom to operate as their Board and shareholders advise.

[iris lilies]

With all due respect to the reactive censorship being discussed, I was thinking along the lines of whether or not the tech companies have crossed the line from being just platforms to being publishers. In other words, they are destinations which pick winners and losers among the publishers, drive their own agenda, censor nefariously through guarded data research that they do not share with their customers ( both consumers and providers of content.). Should they be broken up?

After all, in who’s interest is it to quash “racist” dialog? How is the public supposed to learn who is what if their speech is being banned? The tech companies believe it is in the interest of their stockholders to not allow “offensive” postings, but how is this affecting the way we perceive the world when so few “platforms” exist.


I think this arguement about allowing the haters to identify themselves with their crazy talk is a good one. Let the ideas fly freely in the blogosphere! For me, it is excessive repetition of the same thing by the same posters that is ridiculous and off-putting. It is annoying.

[iris lilies]

I am still in mourning for The
internet Database Movie forums, a treasure trove of information about films and tv shows.

The trolls apparently killed it.they required too much time to delete nonsensical hate posts. I suppose if they had allowed these posts to stand, thy would,have ruined the experience for most readers. Me, I tended ro hang out on thread that did not attract trolls so I didnt run into a lot of stupidity.

[Williamsmith]

The difference between being simply a stand alone platform redistributing news and a publisher that controls the content consumers see, is to me a critical point in regard to censorship. Social media tech companies give priority to revenue making over free speech issues. To me, our POTUS is proof of that. The future of journalistic endeavors are jeopardized by the relationship between tech and censorship of speech based on control of destination. Facebook seems to me to be flirting with ethical issues when it claims that its model is purely user driven. Facebook and the other social media outlets incentivize specific content from journalistic providers and in that way censors information. Is the public square....still square?

[jp1]

I think this arguement about allowing the haters to identify themselves with their crazy talk is a good one. Let the ideas fly freely in the blogosphere! For me, it is excessive repetition of the same thing by the same posters that is ridiculous and off-putting. It is annoying.

So you’re
Ok with the 21st century equivalent f shouting fire in a crowded theater?

[LDAHL]

So is someone responsible if they accuse the families of a mass shooting of being actors and then people dox them and threaten them with harm, up to and including murder, are they merely disgusting worthless human beings or are they responsible for the follow on threats made by their audience against the people whose children were murdered?

The former. The bad actors are responsible for their own bad acts. Start punishing the people you believe influenced them, and we get into the murky realm of thought crime, speech codes and preemptive censorship.

Whatever harm the trolls do is dwarfed by what we would suffer at the hands of the speech police.

[iris lilies]

So you’re
Ok with the 21st century equivalent f shouting fire in a crowded theater?
I am OK with the law having a high standard of what “hate” speech is to be tamped down by the government through the criminal justice system. Apparently, according to what I read today, the
Supreme court has carefully considered the criteria that qualifies as criminal speech. I wont second guess them on that.

[jp1]

I am OK with the law having a high standard of what “hate” speech is to be tamped down by the government through the criminal justice system. Apparently, according to what I read today, the
Supreme court has carefully considered the criteria that qualifies as criminal speech. I wont second guess them on that.

We're not talking hate speech. We're talking outright lies and defamation of people whose kids were killed.

I'm curious what you read today. Was it expert opinion on infowars?

[iris lilies]

We're not talking hate speech. We're talking outright lies and defamation of people whose kids were killed.

I'm curious what you read today. Was it expert opinion on infowars?

I dont know which murder case you are talking about.

Upthread I talked about reading legal definition of hate speech in the Wikipedia.

Is there a question here?

[LDAHL]

We're not talking hate speech. We're talking outright lies and defamation of people whose kids were killed.

I'm curious what you read today. Was it expert opinion on infowars?

Apart from the existing law on slander and harassment and libel, what would you like to see?

It’s not illegal to be a jackhole. I’m not sure I would trust anybody with the power to punish them if it were.

[ToomuchStuff]

The difference between being simply a stand alone platform redistributing news and a publisher that controls the content consumers see, is to me a critical point in regard to censorship. Social media tech companies give priority to revenue making over free speech issues. To me, our POTUS is proof of that. The future of journalistic endeavors are jeopardized by the relationship between tech and censorship of speech based on control of destination. Facebook seems to me to be flirting with ethical issues when it claims that its model is purely user driven. Facebook and the other social media outlets incentivize specific content from journalistic providers and in that way censors information. Is the public square....still square?


Don't newspapers do the same thing? They give priority to stories that drive up readership and sales, and then give out more free papers when calculating their output to calculate sales/ad inputs as "they reach more people".
As to your last question, it isn't the public square, it may still be a square, but it is in a location that you rented under their T&C, where if you didn't like those, you were free to send a lawyer with a boatload of cash to negotiate ones more favorable to you.
Just because you fell into the trap of everybody else does it, doesn't make it public.
What point you want to make it a utility and provide access to everyone, is another matter.

There are other social media platforms, including some open source ones. The thing it, they don't have the marketshare.

[iris lilies]

Don't newspapers do the same thing? They give priority to stories that drive up readership and sales, and then give out more free papers when calculating their output to calculate sales/ad inputs as "they reach more people".
As to your last question, it isn't the public square, it may still be a square, but it is in a location that you rented under their T&C, where if you didn't like those, you were free to send a lawyer with a boatload of cash to negotiate ones more favorable to you.
Just because you fell into the trap of everybody else does it, doesn't make it public.
What point you want to make it a utility and provide access to everyone, is another matter.

There are other social media platforms, including some open source ones. The thing it, they don't have the marketshare.

I think I agree with this, I just am not sure what WmSmith is saying.

Publishers do promote a specific point of view in their publications, be it newspapers, books, online media. Facebook is a platform, or a publisher.

I dont see Facebook as a public utility that

1) needs regulating
2) must be free of bias

Is this the issue WmSmith is talking about?

[jp1]

Apart from the existing law on slander and harassment and libel, what would you like to see?

It’s not illegal to be a jackhole. I’m not sure I would trust anybody with the power to punish them if it were.

Actually i’d like to see exactly what has happened. Facebook, has finally decided to remove the figleaf of ‘news site’ frim a major jackhole. I dont think the government or anyone else needs to do anything. The free market took care of the problem.

But i’m also not particularly worried about the slippery slope of broad public censoring. Maybe if facebook removes fox ‘news’ i’ll begin to worry about it, but until then facebook’s bar for what constitutes news is still quite low.

[jp1]

I dont know which murder case you are talking about.

Upthread I talked about reading legal definition of hate speech in the Wikipedia.

Is there a question here?

I’m talking about the samdy hook parents who have been receiving numerous death threats after being doxed by gun nuts after alex jones called them crisis actors who hadnt actually lost their children.

Earlier in the thread i was talking about te pizza gate hoax promulgated by alex jones that resulted in a man goig to the pizzaria with a gun. How many more things does jones have to do before it stops being controversial that reasonable people want to take away as many of his platforms as they can?

[Teacher Terry]

I would think that jones is starting to cause dangerous issues. You can’t yell fire in a movie theater so I don’t see a whole lot of difference with what he is doing.

[iris lilies]

I’m talking about the samdy hook parents who have been receiving numerous death threats after being doxed by gun nuts after alex jones called them crisis actors who hadnt actually lost their children.

Earlier in the thread i was talking about te pizza gate hoax promulgated by alex jones that resulted in a man goig to the pizzaria with a gun. How many more things does jones have to do before it stops being controversial that reasonable people want to take away as many of his platforms as they can?

Ok, I did know vaguely about the parents of these dead children being hassled.

Anyway, I think of this situation you describe with this Alex Jones person as being one of two representations of ideas by reasonable people.

1) Reasonable people can think Alex Jones has reached such a level of influence with his hate speech/lies (however you want to characterize it) that they put pressue on their favorite publishers, like Facebook, to shut down his content, his voice. I am not in that camp. Just because I am not in that camp doesnt mean I think this is the fringe-crazy camp. I just think you are wrong. You have a different dominant value. My guess in representing your point of view is that you would say you value human life and human dignity over abtract thoughts of freedom of speech.

2) Reasonable people can also choose to show more respect to the abstract concept of freedom of speech than you are doing. We are not fringe-crazy, we just value something differently, we give it more weight than you do. And, to put a practical spin on it, I think your camp is playing whack-a-mole by closing down Alex Jones because there is any number of nutjobs with guns who look for an inspirational guru, and there are plenty of those gurus in the Alex Jones mold.

[catherine]

With all due respect to the reactive censorship being discussed, I was thinking along the lines of whether or not the tech companies have crossed the line from being just platforms to being publishers.

That is the interesting question. We have always assumed the internet to be completely open and democratic, and people like Zuckerberg have figured out a way to provide a common platform for everyone to use. It has worked. So, to your point, if FB or any other social media platform starts deciding who may contribute and who may not, does it cease to be the very platform it started out to be? What happens when a social platform's censure starts defining its own vision, in the same manner the publisher of Mother Jones or The National Review would?

The interesting thing about FB and its ilk is the self-selection aspect. It's a positive thing and also a negative thing. In other words, it's positive in that you can find any group you want--Republican goat farmers who knit. You tend to "like" organizations with similar peripheral interests/attributes. It's good because you can find these micro segments; it's bad because the singular focus tends to be isolating and confirmatory of your own likes and biases.

So most of us will never be influenced by a neo-Nazi's rant, or given misinformation by a homophobic, mysogynist psychopath. We'll never get there. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. At what point does hate become a virus, spread exponentially via technology? I don't think we're there yet, but I wonder what would have happened if Hitler had had a Facebook page.

As we've discussed, FB is an enterprise owned by the shareholders and they don't have any responsibility to censure free speech. But maybe it's a great question to think about: At what point would a government have to go over the heads of a social media company that's been built on free speech and eliminate a social virus?

[LDAHL]

That is the interesting question. We have always assumed the internet to be completely open and democratic, and people like Zuckerberg have figured out a way to provide a common platform for everyone to use. It has worked. So, to your point, if FB or any other social media platform starts deciding who may contribute and who may not, does it cease to be the very platform it started out to be? What happens when a social platform's censure starts defining its own vision, in the same manner the publisher of Mother Jones or The National Review would?

The interesting thing about FB and its ilk is the self-selection aspect. It's a positive thing and also a negative thing. In other words, it's positive in that you can find any group you want--Republican goat farmers who knit. You tend to "like" organizations with similar peripheral interests/attributes. It's good because you can find these micro segments; it's bad because the singular focus tends to be isolating and confirmatory of your own likes and biases.

So most of us will never be influenced by a neo-Nazi's rant, or given misinformation by a homophobic, mysogynist psychopath. We'll never get there. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. At what point does hate become a virus, spread exponentially via technology? I don't think we're there yet, but I wonder what would have happened if Hitler had had a Facebook page.

As we've discussed, FB is an enterprise owned by the shareholders and they don't have any responsibility to censure free speech. But maybe it's a great question to think about: At what point would a government have to go over the heads of a social media company that's been built on free speech and eliminate a social virus?

And who do we trust to decide who the social viruses are?

[iris lilies]

That is the interesting question. We have always assumed the internet to be completely open and democratic, and people like Zuckerberg have figured out a way to provide a common platform for everyone to use. It has worked. So, to your point, if FB or any other social media platform starts deciding who may contribute and who may not, does it cease to be the very platform it started out to be? At what point you editing, curating, defining a vision, in the same manner the publisher of Mother Jones or The National Review would?

The interesting thing about FB and its ilk is the self-selection aspect. It's a positive thing and also a negative thing. In other words, it's positive in that you can find any group you want--Republican goat farmers who knit. You tend to "like" organizations with similar peripheral interests/attributes. It's good because you can find these micro segments; it's bad because the singular focus tends to be isolating and confirmatory of your own likes and biases.

So most of us will never be influenced by a neo-Nazi's rant, or given misinformation by a homophobic, mysogynist psychopath. We'll never get there. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. At what point does hate become a virus, spread exponentially via technology? I don't think we're there yet, but I wonder what would have happened if Hitler had had a Facebook page.

As we've discussed, FB is an enterprise owned by the shareholders and they don't have any responsibility to censure free speech. But maybe it's a great question to think about: At what point would a government have to step in and eliminate the virus?

I disagree with quite a lot of this.

“The Internet “ is not Facebook, and Facebook is not the internet.

I have not always assumed the internet to be open and democratic[ally managed.]

Zuckerberg may certainly decide who posts on his platform, nothing wrong with that.*

Zuckerberg may promote a point of view as surely as does Mother Jones, nothing wrong with that, and the users and ultimately the stockholders will shape that decision, as they should

The technology of the internet supports the distribution of ideas across many people and communities, much like how the printing press supported distribution of ideas through words on paper. Hitler had newspapers, broadsides, radio, the technology of the day.

I think speaking of “hate” as a “virus“ can be hyperbolic. Really, it is pretty simple: reasonable people may disagree, and there is a lunatic fringe that we can recognize as not healthy for our society. The reasonable people need to come together and strongly denounce those ideas. Ideas can be trounced with other ideas. Ideas should not be trounced by silencing them. ESPECIALLY ideas should not ever be—never!—stomped down by our government.

*edited to add: in the abstract, I support Zuckerberg in disallowing anyone he wants (cough cough Russians!) to have FB accounts. That doesnt mean I think he makes correct decisions each time he purges people for their expressed thoughts.

[iris lilies]

Also, there seems to be the thought running through this thread (if I am understanding things here) that publishers are free of bias, they do not censor ideas.

not true. They do not promote every idea equally, a form of soft censorship.

Freedom of the press means government does not quash what publishers publish or dictate what they publish.The constitution does not place expectations on publishers to be free of bias. And they are not! Just as major websites like Facebook will not be free of bias

[catherine]

Also, there seems to be the thought running through this thread (if I am understanding things here) that publishers are free of bias, they do not censor ideas.

not true. They do not promote every idea equally, a form of soft censorship.



I think Williamsmith is saying just the opposite, as am I. Publishers have a point of view--of course they do. That's why I used the twin examples of Mother Jones and The National Review. And everyone knows that even news sources that are supposed to be unbiased are not. All news is curated and edited to fit a particular bias or agenda.

[razz]

I am a little confused about the role of the term 'publisher.' Is it not simply the conveyance? The contents in the conveying tool reflect the bias of those who placed them.
Are FB etc., deciding that the loads are unacceptable for transporting or are misusing the conveyance's purpose.

[iris lilies]

I think Williamsmith is saying just the opposite, as am I. Publishers have a point of view--of course they do. That's why I used the twin examples of Mother Jones and The National Review. And everyone knows that even news sources that are supposed to be unbiased are not. All news is curated and edited to fit a particular bias or agenda.

Ok, I agree with all of this.

so what is this thread arguing, then?

[iris lilies]

I am a little confused about the role of the term 'publisher.' Is it not simply the conveyance? The contents in the conveying tool reflect the bias of those who placed them.
Are FB etc., deciding that the loads are unacceptable for transporting or are misusing the conveyance's purpose.
Publishers “place” content. FB chooses which content to place. FB is a publisher.

[Williamsmith]

Publishers “place” content. FB chooses which content to place. FB is a publisher.

This OP is arguing that Zuckerberg’s Facebook is not simply a platform that acts as an unbiased conduit for ideas, news and information......as he makes pains to claim. And that Facebook is just the most prominent example of tech industries monopoly on speech control. That this condition has not been achieved through the fair competition of what capitalistic minded free marketers have in mind when they defend the , “let the market find its own winners and losers.”

Facebook and a few others determine the news that billions of world residents consume every day and more importantly...what they will not see. It swallows up potential competitors to protect its market share and expand it. It results in less choice, a less diverse banquet if you will, to choose from and quashes innovation. Technology tracks our every key stroke and sells that information to the highest bidder so that we become saturated with a bland pablum of gruel rather than a healthy diet of truly stimulating thoughts and ideas.

And because they hide behind the “platform”moniker......they profit as a result of deception.....not competition. And so, they should be broken up into smaller diverse companies for the good of our society. But not handed over to government.

We should all pay attention to what happened to Jones and Ron Paul and realize the kind of power being demonstrated here.

[jp1]

If I recall correctly the fairness doctrine was done away with by the FCC during the Reagan administration. If people care what Jones says they can still go to infowars.com and read all about it. There's been no time in history where a crackpot like him had such an easy and cheap ability to spout whatever he feels like spouting about to as wide of an audience as is interested. To expect facebook or youtube or anyone else to have to provide him a free platform for his nonsense is ridiculous.

[Williamsmith]

As long as you are consistent and won’t complain should someone you approve of experiences the same treatment.....I’m good with it. But as for me, I would prefer to be my own filter rather than leave it up to whomever or whatever.

[jp1]

Well, with the end of net neutrality one doesnt know. But for now we can all go looking for, or posting on our own web site, whatever viewpoint we want. When comcast or at&t starts blocking sites they dont like then i’ll get concerned.

[iris lilies]

If I recall correctly the fairness doctrine was done away with by the FCC during the Reagan administration. If people care what Jones says they can still go to infowars.com and read all about it. There's been no time in history where a crackpot like him had such an easy and cheap ability to spout whatever he feels like spouting about to as wide of an audience as is interested. To expect facebook or youtube or anyone else to have to provide him a free platform for his nonsense is ridiculous.
To the bold:
i dont think so. Your statement seems to me to be awfully self imoortant about our time in history. We just arent that special here in 2018.

I dont see this as being much different from any other crackpot who has grabbed the ear of the media.

I remember all of the breathless news coverage of the Westboro Baptist Church to whip up our outrage, and look how that calmed down. The Church has been pretty much hobbled by clever words and analysis in the public square.

I think it s better for societyto get the stink out in the open, and the turn it over and face it up to the sun.

[jp1]

My point wasnt that there are more crackpots today ir that they are any crackier than the crackpots of days gone by. What i was trying to say is simply that it’s way cheaper and easier to put up a website and have the ability to reach anyone with an internet connection, compared to 20 years and further ago when the ability to reach a mass audience was dependant on either buying a printing oress and a lot of ink and paper or doing something that the media found noteworthy enough to report on.

[LDAHL]

Every advance carries the crackpots along with the rest of us. I’m inclined to think that is on balance a good thing, although it’s true that the infoweb makes it easier to find and share ideas with like-minded addlepates. It also makes it easier to delude oneself that something is a thing when it probably isn’t a thing. If you devote enough time and effort to searching out examples of white squirrels or homicidal policemen, you might eventually come to the incorrect conclusion that we are overrun with white squirrels or homicidal policemen.

But overall the many benefits of the new technology are not offset by the augmented crackpottery it enables. I have little sympathy for the various internet vigilantes who want to shame, regulate or otherwise silence people they dislike.

[Williamsmith]

“But overall the many benefits of the new technology are not offset by the augmented crackpottery it enables. I have little sympathy for the various internet vigilantes who want to shame, regulate or otherwise silence people they dislike.”

The various internet vigilantes are quasi-government, Government, ex government, establishment types who are in bed with “platforms” like Google and Facebook which decide what information you can see over their monopolistic right speech dispensary.

To do the mental gymnastics it takes to say it’s alright to censor Alex Jones ....and whomever else you hate.....is to trample on Western Societies ideal of free speech protected by a “process” of judge and a jury of peers guarded by the right to face our accusers in a way that is not opaque. It is a purely dystopian way of allowing fascism in the name of democracy.

If theier is a free speech principle.....then one should continue to stick to the principle. Can we not still read about the inaccurate and misleading and fomenting violence articles that led to the Iraq wars? Why should we be okay with unknown sources making decisions about low quality, fake or misleading information and deleting it from the public square?

Its like traveling down a road and reading the “detour ahead” signs. We are directed to a different way to get to our destination even though there are other roads that may be quicker. But there’s no construction ahead.

And it is ironic that the very people who follow Alex Jones are now emboldened more to believe in government conspiracies because......well the state just conspired with social media to take him down.