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.