3 ms·
Then how about the examples where people have been banned from sites like Twitter because they offended people, and one of the offended individuals had 'friends
by CM30 11y ago
Then how about the examples where people have been banned from sites like Twitter because they offended people, and one of the offended individuals had 'friends' at the company? Or when people nearly got blacklisted from industries because a couple of people hated their political views? Or perhaps a certain portion of the media's attempt to sweep under the rug any bad behaviour by groups they consider 'disadvantaged'. Or a willingness for certain social media sites to ban people and delete content for mentioning those negative issues.
A lot of this isn't boycotting. It's trying to kick someone off a large portion of the internet because they said something you don't like by pulling strings or falsely reporting their work as 'illegal'. It's trying to remove 'wrongthink' because your political narrative crumbles the minute it's put under any scrutiny.
There's definitely an interest in censorship there. Double so on college campuses and some other such areas.
- justin66 11y ago> people have been banned from sites like Twitter because they offended people If that falls under your definition of censorship, we've got a pretty fundamental disagreement.
- CountSessine 11y agoWhy? A generation ago, a lot of people on the left felt that there was a conspiracy in what was then called the 'mainstream media' to frame political discussion by not covering certain issues, like East Timor. If Twitter is now part of the mainstream, how is banning unpopular opinions on the platform not censorship? Perhaps this is ultimately self-correcting and these unpopular opinions will find other outlets for expression, but I don't understand how you can not consider this a form of censorship? Is it only censorship when its perpetrated by the government?
- CM30 11y agoYeah, pretty much this. Remember, censorship isn't only when the government bans something. Yes, that's an example of censorship, but individuals and other private parties can censor stuff as well, and when literally all the places you can gain an audience are private property... then anything they don't like is de facto censored. Which to be fair, is a problem with the internet and much of the modern day world. So much that people depend on is privately owned that freedom in the 'from government' sense is basically meaningless.
- NotSammyHagar 11y agoI don't see that happening. I only see things like people claiming the confederacy treated black people better than today getting flak. I don't see it happening to people that disagree with this or that republican or democrat pol.
- bko 11y ago> ExxonMobil is under investigation by the New York Attorney General for withholding information from both its shareholders and the public about the risks of climate change. This may not exactly be censorship but it's basically punishing climate change skepticism. Seems a bit far reaching and used as a political tool to try to scare away other groups from funding research that may be skeptical of the current science. How exxon shareholders were damaged by this, and how they will be better off by giving company equity to the NY attorney general office and lawyers is beyond me http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/05/news/exxonmobil-climate-change-investigation/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/05/news/exxonmobil-climate-chan...
- dragonwriter 11y ago> This may not exactly be censorship but it's basically punishing climate change skepticism. Its charging a company with a legal obligation to disclose material facts relevant to its future business prospects for misrepresenting the information it had. That's not "punishing climate skepticism" except to the extent that "climate skepticism" is a label which abuses "skepticism" to mean "active, knowing misrepresentation".