Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

Thread: Social Media Censorship

  1. #21
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    25,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    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.

  2. #22
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    25,383
    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.

  3. #23
    Williamsmith
    Guest
    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?

  4. #24
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,802
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    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?

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    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.

  6. #26
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    25,383
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,802
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    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?

  8. #28
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    25,383
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    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?
    Last edited by iris lilies; 8-15-18 at 1:12am.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    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.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •