Author Topic: Deplatforming  (Read 10644 times)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #50 on: December 06, 2018, 11:59:51 AM »
Well, only the righteous can ascend to the cloud.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #51 on: January 16, 2019, 09:20:57 AM »
Quote
Social media activists noticed Roku was offering the channel earlier this week, half a year after YouTube, Facebook and Apple, among others, had banned it.

Roku initially defended the decision on the grounds it did not censor content unless it was illegal.

But it has backtracked, after facing widespread criticism.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #52 on: January 16, 2019, 04:18:53 PM »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2019, 05:06:10 PM »
Maybe I'm missing the point.  But having to fight a Mega Corp to effectively exercise your right to free speech because they have a monopoly (or in oligarchy in connection with other Mega corps with which they effectively collude) seems a pretty big threat to free speech.  It also seems like something we already resolved against the Mega corps, or did I misread the case where the operator of a mall was prohibitted from restricting free speech on its own premises?

I can't even imagine the outrage that it would bring if conservatives controlled social media and acted this way.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #54 on: January 16, 2019, 06:38:31 PM »
Corporations decide what speech they will tolerate on their media, or the government decides what speech they will tolerate on the corporations' media.

Choose your poison.  :(

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #55 on: January 16, 2019, 09:50:45 PM »
Free speech > Free Market? 
Just because you can say something doesn't mean people have to supply the soap box and megaphone for ya.  (or run their adds when you do)

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #56 on: January 16, 2019, 09:55:44 PM »
Free speech > Free Market? 
Just because you can say something doesn't mean people have to supply the soap box and megaphone for ya.  (or run their adds when you do)

How about a thought experiment: what if "speech" was only hearable at all with a platform of some kind. Like, imagine if going out into the street was no longer possible in the future, and all speech had to be transmitted through networks, or via visual technology, or something like that. Now imagine that the private companies owning this infrastructure had the benefit of the consensus being that free market > free speech. So now they're in the position to de-platform whom they choose, because after all, it's their equipment and their private enterprise. However in this scenario if you don't speech through their system then your speech is heard by no one at all. So in this thought experiment we would see that there is literally no free speech if the free market is placed as the highest value; since freedom can be roughly defined as "the ability to communicate your thoughts." If it's merely defined as "the ability to stand in an empty room and speak" then it means not very much at all as a value.

So now the test would be to judge how closely our current environment matches that of the thought experiment. In terms of walking out into the street and speaking freely - not so much. Although we might well question how effectively speech carries in that milieu. But online speech, through mass media or the internet? Whole other story. That's why I think deplatforming is a real issue to hash out.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #57 on: January 17, 2019, 03:06:08 AM »
So now the test would be to judge how closely our current environment matches that of the thought experiment. In terms of walking out into the street and speaking freely - not so much. Although we might well question how effectively speech carries in that milieu. But online speech, through mass media or the internet? Whole other story. That's why I think deplatforming is a real issue to hash out.

With the current environment I'd have to question the ability of a great many views being able to express their views on a street corner without being on the receiving end of a violent counter-response. (see: UC Berkley)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #58 on: January 17, 2019, 09:17:45 AM »
Corporations decide what speech they will tolerate on their media, or the government decides what speech they will tolerate on the corporations' media.

Choose your poison.  :(

Lol, it's a false dichotemy.  I choose the government protects your right to free speech by preventing corporations from creating a public network and then claiming a right to control the public's voice.

Failing that, then I demand we revoke the legal protections that apply to networks that protect them from illegal content posted by users.  If they can control the network based on their own speech rights, then they should be accountable for illegal speech on their networks.  Pretty quickly put them out of business that way.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #59 on: January 17, 2019, 09:44:28 AM »
All good points but there’s no (good) alternative.  Does “the government” supply every citizen with their own plot in cyber space and the tools to list that content and search for other content?  Does Uncle Sam hire an army of content managers to censor people?  Maybe it’s only reactive, and content is ONLY screened when a complaint is made?  Or do we mandate by law that the digital domain of free speech is a free for all and anything goes? 

Even if we did make it all censorship free with zero code of conduct and nothing is banned there would emerge cyber-Sherpa to guide people on their journeys.  They’d likely be a paid service.  Someone who plucks the gems from the rubbish and points them out to you.  They are now the gate keepers.  They are now “de-platforming” others they view as trash.

We are complaining about those who aggregate, not those who silence.  Do you fear those who guide us on our journey through this digital landscape have too much power?  Isn’t it up to the people who pay them to decide that?

Is there a scenario where we can “have it all” and not be forced to sift through the garbage ourselves?  If there is a market for those who think the gems are worthless and value other knick-knacks then let them come forward and offer their services. 

The alternative is a state sponsored internet that will improve nothing, only slant and guide your experience to their desires (instead of those of a service you chose and paid for / participated in).  As bad as many believe this is, it can get a hell of a lot worse.  We’re not going back to the days of a BBS run on your personal computer worrying about nobody but Ma Bell.  Well, at least not until some dystopian government takeover of the internet happens.  Then we may be back to trading animated gif art for our pirate bluetooth broadcasted homepage/blog we squirt out to those other information starved rebels on the city bus.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #60 on: January 17, 2019, 09:49:27 AM »
Quote
Failing that, then I demand we revoke the legal protections that apply to networks that protect them from illegal content posted by users.  If they can control the network based on their own speech rights, then they should be accountable for illegal speech on their networks
This may be where we end up.
With a bit more AI voodoo there could be a network that can react quickly enough to be useful yet still be held accountable to not posting illegal content.

Seriati is right that it's BS they can restrict content, yet somehow claim they aren't responsible for what they allow. 

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #61 on: January 17, 2019, 10:29:11 AM »
Offhand it seems to me that we're headed towards a future where certain infrastructure is just a public domain, and is owned by no one. But that will take a lot of time. In the meantime (which could last centuries) there will be private enterprise pioneering certain domains and administering over it, but that doesn't have to mean that there's no way to manage these things other than leaving it entirely in their hands.

The mere fact that the results of a national election can be massively affected by discourse on Facebook, for example, ought to demonstrate that it's not just some private store like McDonald's. Now insofar as there are laws in place to regulate major TV networks, I don't see why there shouldn't be some equivalent for websites that...say...have above a certain amount of traffic; or perhaps it should be a certain market value. It's hard for me to say offhand how to separate Joe Shmoe's personal website from Facebook, other than by reference to traffic and dollar value. And frankly my opinion on the regulation of "news" networks is already abysmal, so I wouldn't mind a simultaneous reform of both that and internet domains at the same time.

And I agree with DW that it's not quite right to suppose that we'd be better off if government just nationalized Facebook or something like that, so if there would be any creation of rules I'd want it to be less onerous than "the government will just tell you exactly what to do." Personally I don't think there's a reason to prevent interested parties doing their best on these platforms to get your attention; but what needs potential remedy (in both TV media and possibly online) is the administrators being able to prefer one political viewpoint over another and to manipulate content to essentially create propaganda. And this is where things get tricky. Propaganda is so easy to create that I don't know how to stop it wholesale. After all how can you prevent someone declining to report of a story? So the more curated the content is, like on FOX News, the more I think the burden should be to present facts that are not distorted, misreported, or spun in such a way as to create a false impression of what happened; and on less curated forums, like Facebook (since they don't outright program what goes on their site), the burden should be to show that they aren't preferring one view or another.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #62 on: January 17, 2019, 10:39:50 AM »
You could just teach kids in public school how to understand why and how various interests will try to manipulate them.  From politics to purchasing, people are trying to shape your decisions and mine you for data (to do a better job at shaping your decisions) constantly. 

With more of the nation educated to be critical thinkers most of this "problem" could be better handled.  Those that it doesn't fix, at least become more readily apparent to the next generation who has a shot at pulling off what we can't.

Or we could keep pushing the boundaries of medical and technological science while creating a society of people who accept what they are told and are far more predictable than the AI tasked with figuring them out.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #63 on: January 17, 2019, 11:02:55 AM »
RTL activist : those libtards censored my you tube!

Me: I'm glad somebody took down those disgusting videos of medical waste.

When actually, they didn't take it down, they just kept it from popping up at breakfast.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #64 on: January 17, 2019, 11:07:09 AM »
All good points but there’s no (good) alternative.  Does “the government” supply every citizen with their own plot in cyber space and the tools to list that content and search for other content?

No.  I don't want a governmental provider, I want a reasonable governmental regulator.  The SEC regulates private company securities offerings, it doesn't sell securities.

If a private company opens it's network to the public, which is the express business model of all social media, they should inherently lose the right to restrict the members of the public's right to share information.  Sometimes "posting a restriction" may be enough (like maybe a restrict on profanity on a kids forum), other times it's not - like a restriction on the expression of political views.  Like I said, this seems to be settled law, with a number of rulings on solicitation in company towns and bars on restricting free speech in malls.  Invite the public in, and you're stuck with the public having rights being there.

Quote
Does Uncle Sam hire an army of content managers to censor people?  Maybe it’s only reactive, and content is ONLY screened when a complaint is made?  Or do we mandate by law that the digital domain of free speech is a free for all and anything goes?

Two ways, one, if illegal content is occurring the provider should provide it to governmental authorities.  Much like a mall has to call the cops to arrest shoplifters, even if they can detain them.

Second, they should vigorously defend the public when their rights are restricted by the company.  File some suits for discrimination against someone that is deplatforming for political reasons.  Heck opening it up to private rights of action, with treble damages, would cause a massive influx of suits and establish a pretty clear regime of protective (and reasonable) conduct.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #65 on: January 17, 2019, 01:16:41 PM »
I don't think suppressing a search result is censorship. That would be like saying walmart is practicing censorship because they refuse to carry a certain magazine on their shelf.

It is customer service, will more people stop using your portal because of your editorial impact, or because when they search abortion they see a smashed fetus?

The mall might have to allow you to speak, but they don't have to announce that you are speaking on the PA.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #66 on: January 17, 2019, 02:12:44 PM »
I don't think suppressing a search result is censorship. That would be like saying walmart is practicing censorship because they refuse to carry a certain magazine on their shelf.

I think it might be more helpful to think of "the internet" as being a public utility for the purposes of discussing what is or isn't censorship/deplatforming. Let's put aside for the moment that there's a difference between ISP's, infrastructure, and web sites. When considering what results Google will bring up, we might think of this like a telephone book, or like going to the library, or perhaps like searching through Netflix. Take whatever example you like. When searching for content, when that content is curated by people with special interests they are using money to effectively determine what the range of your choices is. Imagine for the moment that when surfing Netflix you had a lot of trouble finding a movie or show you wanted, because a religious lobby had paid Netflix big bucks to lower anything with sex or violence to the bottom of the list. Or imagine if a liberal-friendly lobby did the same to any films depicting war in a glorified way, or anything else to do with supposed Republican values. You can imagine the outcry there would be if people wanting to see what movies are out there were forced to fight through throttling and upvoting of content by interested parties. And the same would go for a phone book (back when they mattered): imagine if instead of alphabetical, business numbers were listed in order or "priority", where priority means who paid the phone book company the most; or perhaps had a quid pro quo with the owners. It would be chaos! Now to an extent the internet will sort choatically anyhow from a user-perspective, but there's a difference between chaos coming from too many options, versus coming from having to work extra hard to find what you want.

Google is so monolithic, though, that perhaps it would be easier to imagine the discussion about Youtube, or Facebook, or some other system where there are search options and content made available to you through heuristics. But either way my point is that when people go to these places they implicitly don't think of them (at least I don't believe they do) as so-and-so's private company where videos or pictures are to be found; they think of it as "the place with the stuff." What people want is a simple place to go where all the stuff is, and to find it there without difficulty. And this is why I think it's helpful to think of them as utilities; even if legally they aren't, they are essentially treated as such by users and in a way serve that function to varying extents. It's like roads: let's say roads were all privately owned, and you wanted to get to the store. Surely the main objective would be to figure out the best way to get there, maybe the place with good parking, etc. To have to consider "but whose road is that one, again?" or "hm I'd better avoid Mr. X's road because I wouldn't let him on mine last time" would be annoying and overly arduous for a simple task like driving somewhere. We want to go on the road that gets to the place, plain and simple. And likewise, people don't frequent Google because they love its branding or admire the ethics of the owners or anything; they go there because it's the place to find the things. If it's better at finding the things than the competition then they'll go there, because their aim is to find the things, not because they care about Google particularly. The behavior choices almost certainly match the extent to which the search engine functions as a utility. To whatever extent it deviates from being like a public utility is probably where it causes people aggravation or concern. And likewise for Youtube, and I would even argue, Netflix. Mess with the 'freedom' of these platforms and they basically end up not being what people want, and in a futuristic sense, what we more and more will come to need.

ETA - I'll just throw one more point in, which is that even shopping seems to be verging towards the "we want the place with the things" approach, where Amazon serves as a central hub of countless sellers, and if you want to buy the things you go there. One account, one credit card, one stop shop for most things you might need other than groceries. And I think this is the future of shopping; not because Amazon are such geniuses and not because their brand is so killer; but because it's simply superior to have a single destination to take care of multiple needs, and to have a single search engine designed to guide you where you need. In the future, perhaps distantly, I imagine that the idea of having multiple different "stores" will be seen as ridiculous, when all products can be featured on the same website and you can sort through them yourself. The idea of having multiple destinations that each have unique product is simply unnecessary from a logistics standpoint. And the beauty of it is that it still retains the full force of the free market in terms of who sells what and at what price; and the same is true of Youtube content creation in a way. The more search engines, or Youtube, or any of these services, switch from being optional boutique services that you can 'take or leave', and begin to be essential, we'll see the matter taken more seriously from an infrastructure standpoint. For now the issue of deplatforming seems to be more about buying the right to possess the megaphone, which in my view affects the public good just as much as whether the roads are functional.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 02:21:19 PM by Fenring »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #67 on: January 17, 2019, 02:44:44 PM »
Telephone book is a good example. Do you think that they blindly accepted yellow pages ads? What about the library? Are you going to get mad at them for not putting "9/11 was an inside job" on their shelves? Or a coffee table book full of lurid abortion photos?

Netflix absolutely manipulates their results based on whether they are getting revenue or if it has lots of "likes".

Youtube has a particular problem, if you've ever used it. It will immediately start streaming other videos it thinks you will like. If things most people hate bubble onto the queue, people are going to be pissed off.

Google isn't at all like a road. Nobody can build another road right next to it. Nobody can decide to drive on Bing instead. DuckDuckGo exists, and curates in the other direction. In fact, there are a bunch of alternatives, easily found by google.

8 search engines

Google is monolithic because people choose it, not because they have no choice. DuckDuckGo is not weird or secret, it is constantly offered as an alternative to google on sites like Breitbart who fear Google's impact.

If you think people don't appreciate the brand, you may be right. "google" is a verb now. Nobody's saying "Bing it". Still, only 65% of search market share is google, fueled in part by the fact that China is all Baidu.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #68 on: January 17, 2019, 09:53:02 PM »
I don't think suppressing a search result is censorship.

I'd actually say it's more like a violation of contract.  Most "free" search engines generate revenue from your data and the targetted pitches of products they can front to you.  In exchange for that consideration they have agreed to provide the results of your search.  If they are manipulating the results or hiding results, they've effectively breached their obligation to you.

Quote
That would be like saying walmart is practicing censorship because they refuse to carry a certain magazine on their shelf.

Except it's nothing like that.  It'd be more like if Walmart prohibited you from talking about magazines they don't carry inside their stores.  Electronic speech has little connection on the point you are making to a capacity constrained box store (where the capacity constraint is real and not just generated to suppress certain speech).

And oddly, Walmart has an express history of censorship.  They actually forced providers of videos and dvds to edit out objectionable content from movies they sold.  You literally did not get the same version of the movie from the Walmart movie.

Quote
It is customer service, will more people stop using your portal because of your editorial impact, or because when they search abortion they see a smashed fetus?

Secrets are the problem.  No one is even aware that the searches are manipulated.  They ought to have to tell you in plain English.  "This search has been modified to ensure the first 10 pages are comprised of paid results and no results that support a conservative agenda all because we know you're too stupid to understand how we manipulate the algorythms."  They put that prominently on their search results and I'd feel differently.

Quote
The mall might have to allow you to speak, but they don't have to announce that you are speaking on the PA.

Never said they did, but that's not what's occurring, they are deliberately impairing the rights that everyone else has, not denying a magnification of rights.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #69 on: January 18, 2019, 01:02:20 AM »
Quote
The mall might have to allow you to speak, but they don't have to announce that you are speaking on the PA.

Never said they did, but that's not what's occurring, they are deliberately impairing the rights that everyone else has, not denying a magnification of rights.

I think this is a big point. It sometimes feels like the deplatforming of Alex Jones, for instance, carries with it the premise that he has a megaphone he doesn't deserve or has somehow commandeered, which is being taken back away from him. But in reality he started up his own following from nothing, gaining popularity purely due to content creation, rather than due to having unique access to infrastructure. Now he did eventually have his own show, which is a platform, but in principle that's no different in our modern situation than a Youtube artist acquiring a major following on their channel. Now I'm not saying he should be immune from having to follow terms of service, but that said, unless Youtube was offering him some kind of superior service as compared to other content creators then I don't see how his popularity could be regarded as untoward.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #70 on: January 18, 2019, 09:13:37 AM »
Quote
Secrets are the problem.  No one is even aware that the searches are manipulated.  They ought to have to tell you in plain English.  "This search has been modified to ensure the first 10 pages are comprised of paid results and no results that support a conservative agenda all because we know you're too stupid to understand how we manipulate the algorythms."  They put that prominently on their search results and I'd feel differently.
Seems fair to me.  <clicks OK>

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #71 on: January 24, 2019, 04:39:31 PM »
Youtube is at it again. This time they are taking away the voices of teens expressing their terrifying disregard for personal safety.

Quote
The company has now extended its policies banning "harmful and dangerous content" to "pranks with a perceived danger of serious physical injury."
YouTube added that it does not allow "pranks that make victims believe they're in serious physical danger -- for example, a home invasion prank or a drive-by shooting prank."

No more tide pod challenges, bird box challenges, cinnamon challenges.

And I wonder what else they will call a dangerous prank. DJT re-election videos should qualify.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #72 on: January 24, 2019, 07:10:40 PM »
Conservatives being harangued by SJW's and other left-wits, like those MAGA Teens on the Washington Mall during their encounter with the Black Hebrews. For that matter, I understand Twitter banned the account the posted the initial video clip excerpt that started it all. ;)

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #73 on: May 05, 2019, 09:47:54 AM »
Quote
Facebook bans far-right leaders Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and others from its platforms as 'dangerous’

It’s good that we’re banning dangerous thoughts and those that propagate them. It’s so great to live in a country where an elite few can decide what speech is too dangerous for us to hear and protect us from it.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #74 on: May 05, 2019, 10:15:27 AM »
Quote
A bill before the Texas Senate seeks to prevent social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter from censoring users based on their viewpoints. Supporters say it would protect the free exchange of ideas, but critics say the bill contradicts a federal law that allows social media platforms to regulate their own content.

The measure — Senate Bill 2373 by state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola — would hold social media platforms accountable for restricting users’ speech based on personal opinions. Hughes said the bill applies to social media platforms that advertise themselves as unbiased but still censor users. The Senate State Affairs Committee unanimously approved the bill last week. (Update: The Texas Senate approved the bill on April 25 in an 18-12 vote. It now heads to the House.)

“Senate Bill 2373 tries to prevent those companies that control these new public spaces, this new public square, from picking winners and losers based on content,” Hughes said in the committee hearing. “Basically if the company represents, ‘We’re an open forum and we don’t discriminate based on content,’ then they shouldn’t be able to discriminate based on content.”

Full article

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #75 on: May 05, 2019, 11:20:11 AM »
"based on personal opinions"

So they can still ban Vaxxers on scientific grounds?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #76 on: May 21, 2019, 03:26:12 PM »
Quote
Facebook maintains a list of "hate agents" for monitoring and potential termination, according to a source inside the company. Among the names reportedly on the "hate agent" list? Star pundit and black conservative activist Candace Owens.
According to the source, a Facebook employee who spoke exclusively to Breitbart News, the spreadsheet of "hate agents" that includes Owens was posted to an internal employee discussion group initially founded by Brian Amerige, the former Facebook engineer who quit the company over concerns about political intolerance.

The source claimed that the spreadsheet includes the names of prominent right-wing and alternative media figures who were recently banned from the platform.

Candace Owens is also included in the spreadsheet, in a separate category marked "extra credit."

A Facebook spokeswoman confirmed to Breitbart News that the list exists, and did not deny that Owens' name appears on it, but believes that there has not yet been an investigation into her.

Owens was, in fact, suspended for posting the poverty rates in fatherless homes as it relates to black Americans.

Quote
On Wednesday, Facebook blocked Trump 2020 advisory board member Jenna Ellis Rives over a pro-life post. She appealed the decision. On Sunday, Facebook finally got back to her, and doubled down, claiming the post violated its "community standards" on "hate speech."

Rives posted a photo of a tweet from blogger Matt Walsh, pointing out how transgender activism undermines key pro-choice arguments. "Gender is a social construct but I am woman hear me roar but anyone can be a woman but no uterus no opinion but transwomen are women but I demand women's rights but men are women but men are scum but drag queens are beautiful but appropriation is evil," Walsh tweeted.

IIRC, Walsh was also suspended from Twitter for this thought violation.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #77 on: May 21, 2019, 03:41:46 PM »
Reads to me like Walsh should have been suspended/banned for rambling nonsense, not the (attempted) content.

But by that standard, half of Facebook may vanish.  ;)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #78 on: May 21, 2019, 04:24:31 PM »
I always enjoy hearing from the Breitbart echo chamber when they wring their hands about the fate of their incoherent heroes.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #79 on: May 21, 2019, 04:34:26 PM »
In a world where we've sued each other, protested and marched over the right to talk on a soap box, the ease with which we ignore the heavy hand of social media censorship is just stunning. 

End the litigation exemption for any social media company that engages in any type of censorship other than to remove illegal conduct.  It may not be enough to save them from regulation at the rate they're going.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #80 on: May 21, 2019, 04:37:20 PM »
Reads to me like Walsh should have been suspended/banned for rambling nonsense, not the (attempted) content.

But by that standard, half of Facebook may vanish.  ;)

That was actually his point, that the left's position on gender is random nonsense. He was suspended for pointing out the ridiculous contradictions of the left's positions on gender.

By that standard, half of Facebook users could vanish. In fact, by that standard, nations have "vanished" half their people to labor camps.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2019, 04:40:24 PM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #81 on: May 21, 2019, 04:39:04 PM »
I always enjoy hearing from the Breitbart echo chamber when they wring their hands about the fate of their incoherent heroes.

 ::) Might want to start reading things like this.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #82 on: May 21, 2019, 08:22:49 PM »
Reads to me like Walsh should have been suspended/banned for rambling nonsense, not the (attempted) content.

I don't know any details about the banning, but just based on the quoted morsel above I know exactly what the point being made is. Right or wrong, it sounded entirely clear and coherent to me...

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #83 on: May 22, 2019, 10:58:03 AM »
I suppose I understood the point but it read like a mess to me.  Maybe I'm just being a punctuation snob.  Silly for someone as terrible at spelling and punctuation as I tend to be I guess.  Maybe I'm just not the right frame of social media mind regarding formatting?

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #84 on: May 22, 2019, 12:10:52 PM »
I suppose I understood the point but it read like a mess to me.  Maybe I'm just being a punctuation snob.  Silly for someone as terrible at spelling and punctuation as I tend to be I guess.  Maybe I'm just not the right frame of social media mind regarding formatting?

I have to expect that the loose structure was deliberate, perhaps to delineate the chaos of the ideas he was lampooning?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #85 on: June 06, 2019, 07:55:41 AM »
YouTube has been conducting a purge. Prominent conservatives are being demonetized, banned, and having their channels removed from search results and recommendations. It’s a broad sweep that is picking up anyone saying things that a guy named Carlos Maza found objectionable (@gaywonk on Twitter) and Vox. Consequently it’s not just conservatives being targeted but, for example, one guy who’s a legitimate reporter that did work documenting election violence. Or, for another example, people critical of immigration policy.

This purge started because Maza got all butthurt over something comedian Stephen Crowder said. Maza got his fellow travelers all worked up and here we are. It’s ironic to see him complain about a few of the people being caught up in this don’t deserve it. It’s as if he never read a history book and saw how these things work.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2019, 07:58:36 AM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #86 on: June 06, 2019, 08:02:50 AM »
To give you an idea, there’s this one from a history teachers

Quote
YouTube have banned me for 'hate speech', I think due to clips on Nazi policy featuring propaganda speeches by Nazi leaders. I'm devastated to have this claim levelled against me, and frustrated 15yrs of materials for #HistoryTeacher community have ended so abruptly.

I think this guy got it back but a lot of his material is now flagged as objectionable and some just outright removed.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #87 on: June 06, 2019, 09:02:20 AM »
Quote
It’s as if he never read a history book and saw how these things work.
Not sure how old the guy in question is, but "It's as if" may be an optional part of that sentence.  I don't run out of fingers counting the people I know who read history for pleasure, so that leaves what they picked up in school.  (And what of that stuck...)

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #88 on: June 06, 2019, 12:34:15 PM »
Quote
It’s as if he never read a history book and saw how these things work.
Not sure how old the guy in question is, but "It's as if" may be an optional part of that sentence.  I don't run out of fingers counting the people I know who read history for pleasure, so that leaves what they picked up in school.  (And what of that stuck...)

Plenty of conservative DO read history, albeit a lot of it they're getting filtered through a pundit of their choice. Rather than other more historical or "reliable" academic sources. But generally speaking, when it comes to knowledge of history, if it came down to a competition between Anti-Fa or BLM sympathizers/apologists (never mind the members of said groups!) and the Tea Party, the Tea Party member is far more likely to be more widely read on matters of history.

But hey Conservatives are dumb, Liberals are smart.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #89 on: June 06, 2019, 12:44:06 PM »
To give you an idea, there’s this one from a history teachers

Quote
YouTube have banned me for 'hate speech', I think due to clips on Nazi policy featuring propaganda speeches by Nazi leaders. I'm devastated to have this claim levelled against me, and frustrated 15yrs of materials for #HistoryTeacher community have ended so abruptly.


No question that certain Leftwits presently pose a greater threat to freedom of speech and a greater propensity for book burning than the worst of the rightwads. The Tea Party only approach the collusion and truth suppression of the left wits when it comes to American economic history. They pretend that America taxes the 48th today more than it did during its "great" period from the end of WW2 to landing on the moon. In truth we taxed the rich more than twice as much then, and they whined about it less. They also let more of it trickle down to us peasants on the ground.


NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #90 on: June 06, 2019, 01:14:23 PM »
Plenty of conservative DO read history, albeit a lot of it they're getting filtered through a pundit of their choice. Rather than other more historical or "reliable" academic sources. But generally speaking, when it comes to knowledge of history, if it came down to a competition between Anti-Fa or BLM sympathizers/apologists (never mind the members of said groups!) and the Tea Party, the Tea Party member is far more likely to be more widely read on matters of history.

Do you have data on this? It sounds incredibly susceptible to confirmation bias.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #91 on: June 07, 2019, 09:49:43 AM »
OK, let's take a look at the deplatforming movement. Long post ....


Quote
Earlier this week, the left-leaning publication Vox went to great lengths to get YouTube to deplatform Crowder. This follows two years of Crowder’s responding to Carlos Maza, a journalist and video producer at the diminutive media group.

In a series of videos over two-years, Crowder took aim at Maza’s leftist arguments with rebuttals sometimes interspersed with comedic remarks about Maza’s personality and sexual orientation.

Maza, who goes by @gaywonk on Twitter, took umbrage with the criticism. He distilled Crowder’s remarks down into a 90-second video clip showcasing words he found hurtful, leaving out context in order to convince YouTube to ban the right-leaning comic.

Whhaaaat? Maza cut the video down to 90 seconds? As you guys will tell me, this is horrible and wrong.

Quote
In addition to demanding Crowder’s ban, Maza spent days on end whipping up outrage about his feelings. He implored LGBTQ supporters to bombard YouTube with complaints, leveraging “pride month” as a political weapon.

Maza’s company duly followed suit.

The Vox-owned site The Verge breathlessly covered Maza’s outrage, and other publications echoed his complaints.

Newsweek wrote an article titled “Steven Crowder incites homophobic harassment of Vox reporter, YouTube slow to react.”
and
Quote
In an interview with CNN, Maza demanded Crowder be totally removed from the platform.

Maza argued that demonetization wasn’t enough, as Crowder can still make money by selling merchandise.

New York Magazine opined YouTube should have demonetized Crowder in the first instance.

That's quite the platform Maza has. This led to a purge on YouTube, some calling it the #VoxAdpocalypse.

YouTube has gone back and forth on its decision to de-monetize Crowder. I've no idea if he still is monetized or not (I'm not much of a Crowder fan) nor do I know the fate of all the others caught up in the event.

It is amazing just how far-reaching this effort to censor is.


Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #92 on: July 03, 2019, 07:20:56 AM »
Congresswoman Frederica Wilson:
Quote
Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable," Wilson said during a press conference. "We are going to shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted."


rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #93 on: July 03, 2019, 10:49:12 AM »
That was a stupid statement. That said a quick google search add some context with
Quote
"You can not intimidate members of Congress, threaten members of Congress. It is against the law in this United States of America," she said.

Though she said "making fun" I suspect with her history of being threaten she intended to point to issue of intimidation. Begs the question of if social media comments meet the standards of intimidation and threats...
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that her statement was a stupid gaff, however based on what I've read about her she just another out of touch politician who doesn't get it.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #94 on: July 03, 2019, 02:01:45 PM »
Maybe she did mean ridiculing:

Quote
The viral video machine that was Ava "Mini AOC" Martinez will no longer be making videos mocking socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), because reports are surfacing that supporters of Ocasio-Cortez have allegedly repeatedly harassed, doxxed and made "death threats" against the child and her family.

A Twitter account that is supposedly a family member of Martinez tweeted out that the family has deleted "all Mini AOC accounts" in order to attempt to preserve the safety of both the child and the family.

Prosecuted or persecuted, same result so I guess either are cool with Wilson as long as it shuts down opposing voices.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #95 on: July 03, 2019, 03:05:25 PM »
Quote
I guess either are cool with Wilson as long as it shuts down opposing voices.

You are correct you are guessing. I'm guessing :) the next step to to argue that Wilson represents everyone on the left and thus avoid any helpful debate on the issue

Those I've talked to on the right or left think Wilson statement was stupid and that Cyber bulling of any kind is wrong. 'Death threats' are particularity troubling and IMO should be prosecuted.

Its sad that the anonymity of the virtual world is a playground of the coward

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #96 on: July 03, 2019, 04:21:26 PM »
If this one statement happened in mostly a vacuum, I'd say you were right. However, deplatforming and potentially violent responses to conservative thought are regularly justified by many of the left, as has been documented.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #97 on: July 04, 2019, 10:06:11 AM »
Quote
However, deplatforming and potentially violent responses to conservative thought are regularly justified by many of the left, as has been documented.

I’m not a fan of social media communication. My observation has been that it’s the loudest and most extreme all or nothing voices that are heard and I see very little room for any middle ground which is odd because most people I know, left or right, tend to live in the middle.
I tried a experiment observing comments on various news stories. There is some attempt at honest dialog and debate however its almost always drown out by the talking points of each side. Participate long enough and the impression is that everyone on either side holds the extreme position. All people on the left are the same, all people on the right are the same. And you begin to see real anger against those ‘others’.

The social media landscape is becoming the playground of the cruel and cowardly, so I have no doubt this method of ‘deplatforming’ is occurring. However, I don’t see it as a right or left thing, I see it as a social media ignorance thing. Hate creates Hate always has always will.   

If social media represents a form of collective consciousness it seems to be regressing to the lowest level of  ID Consciousness - fight or flight - or will to pleasure/power consciousness.


ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #98 on: July 04, 2019, 12:59:11 PM »
I think this is a valid summary of the toxicity of social media. That said, suppression of speech (deplatforming or otherwise),seems to be almost exclusive to the far left.

I’d frankly feel better if I could conclude it’s the extremes on both sides, but I can’t see anything on the extreme right that’s analogous to banning speakers from universities, claiming they feel “unsafe” when discussing certain topics, etc. Those appear to be uniquely far left (and often related to academia) phenomena. I also believe there is a huge distinction between liberal and left. Classic liberals tend to be open to engage and kick ideas around. Leftists, not so much.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #99 on: July 04, 2019, 03:19:23 PM »
Quote
I also believe there is a huge distinction between liberal and left. Classic liberals tend to be open to engage and kick ideas around

I have to agree with that. Deplatforming, especially the methods use undermines Liberalism - I don't get it.

I have voluntary Deplatformed myself from most social media.