6 ms·

Not to be snarky but aren't they censoring at home as well? Whatever you think of Alex Jones or whatever you think you think about him and his ilk, censoring sp

Not to be snarky but aren't they censoring at home as well? Whatever you think of Alex Jones or whatever you think you think about him and his ilk, censoring speech is for the feeble minded and tyrannous. Let's leave thought policing to the politicians and the government.

badrequest 8y ago
What censorship? When I search for "Alex Jones" on Google, I get...Alex Jones.
- passiveincomelg 8y ago
  AFAIK he was kicked off Youtube. Which I think is fine and not at odds with supporting free speech.
  - yacn 8y ago
    Youtube doesn't need to support free speech. They're a private company, not the govenrment.
    - brain_dev 8y ago
      So surely you take no issue with Google developing a search engine that does not support free speech then, either?
      - nrb 8y ago
        The following are not equal: 1) Google has decided that it does not want this content on their platform. 2) The totalitarian government has decided that nobody can access this content on any platform.
        darpa_escapee 8y ago
        Let's be clear here, it's not that they don't want content on their platform: it's that content blatantly violates their rules. Encouraging the harassment of families of school shooting victims is pretty heinous, and not something I'd want affiliated with my brand. I also wouldn't want my brand to become a platform for someone who perpetuates conspiracy theories that cause true believes to pick up weapons and become terrorists, simply because that's how he makes a buck. After all, both Google and Twitter have spent close to a decade silencing religious extremists on their platforms. Where were the free speech advocates when fundamentalist Muslims were silenced on Twitter and couldn't use the platform to spread their message?
        nrb 8y ago
        Yeah, I equated the two concepts: they created rules to specify what they do and don't want on their platform. Sorry if it came across as them deciding arbitrarily on the fly.
      - yacn 8y ago
        False equivalency as has been said and I don't use google anyways...
    - pmoriarty 8y ago
      People are really confusing a free speech issue with a first amendment issue. It's not a first amendment issue because the first amendment only forbids the government from censoring speech, and private companies are not the government. However, it's still a free speech issue, and it's still a censorship issue. Just not a first amendment issue. Private companies can still censor and can stifle/forbid free speech.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > People are really confusing a free speech issue with a first amendment issue. No, people disagree on the meaning, scope, nature, and purpose of “free speech”, despite agreeing that “free speech” is a good thing. It's true that the First Amendment (especially when combined with incorporation under the 14th) directly embodies a reasonably close approximation of one of the viewpoints of what free speech is all about, while simultaneously looking like a narrow special case of one of the other viewpoints. But the nature of the disagreement here is not confusion between a principle and a legal embodiment of that principle, but a fundamental clash of beliefs about the nature of the named principle.
      - passiveincomelg 8y ago
        This is the risk people take when they are too lazy to host their content themselves.
TheForumTroll 8y ago
Censoring is done by states. Facebook or google removing trolls, tools and pedos isn't censoring.
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  >Censoring is done by states False, we do not live in ancient Rome, so censorship can be done by people who are not government officials. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    False, censorship is done by states. Otherwise would you say that removing spam links from this comment section is "censorship"?
    - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
      Censorship can obviously be done by states, but the definition is not restricted to states only. >Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government or private institution
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        So then we need to allow spam links, in order to not be "censoring"?
        wu-ikkyu 8y ago
        Email spam filters handle things well I think. Instead of completely censorsing/hiding things from you, suspected spam is placed in a folder that you can view and decide for yourself whether or not it's worth your attention.
atom-morgan 8y ago
I think this would fall under "acceptable censorship" for many at Google.
ansy 8y ago
> Let's leave thought policing to the politicians and the government. That's actually exactly what the First Amendment of the United States Constitution explicitly prevents. What it doens't prevent, though, is what you're actually upset about. Private corporations and individuals can censor all day long in the United States. It's a great misunderstanding that they're somehow not entitled to that.
murph-almighty 8y ago
Except his speech has put innocent people at risk of being harassed, or in physical danger. When they sued he immediately claimed he was the victim. I have no sympathy for Alex Jones. Don't claim free speech to harass people, then get upset when you're sued for harassment.
sdinsn 8y ago
YouTube is a private platform, and they can censor whatever they like. It only interrupts Freedom of Speech if the government influences this censorship. Meanwhile, in China, the government dictates all censorship. Google is required to follow this exactly. Very big difference.

badrequest 8y ago

What censorship? When I search for "Alex Jones" on Google, I get...Alex Jones.

passiveincomelg 8y ago
AFAIK he was kicked off Youtube. Which I think is fine and not at odds with supporting free speech.
- yacn 8y ago
  Youtube doesn't need to support free speech. They're a private company, not the govenrment.
  - brain_dev 8y ago
    So surely you take no issue with Google developing a search engine that does not support free speech then, either?
    - nrb 8y ago
      The following are not equal: 1) Google has decided that it does not want this content on their platform. 2) The totalitarian government has decided that nobody can access this content on any platform.
      - darpa_escapee 8y ago
        Let's be clear here, it's not that they don't want content on their platform: it's that content blatantly violates their rules. Encouraging the harassment of families of school shooting victims is pretty heinous, and not something I'd want affiliated with my brand. I also wouldn't want my brand to become a platform for someone who perpetuates conspiracy theories that cause true believes to pick up weapons and become terrorists, simply because that's how he makes a buck. After all, both Google and Twitter have spent close to a decade silencing religious extremists on their platforms. Where were the free speech advocates when fundamentalist Muslims were silenced on Twitter and couldn't use the platform to spread their message?
        nrb 8y ago
        Yeah, I equated the two concepts: they created rules to specify what they do and don't want on their platform. Sorry if it came across as them deciding arbitrarily on the fly.
    - yacn 8y ago
      False equivalency as has been said and I don't use google anyways...
  - pmoriarty 8y ago
    People are really confusing a free speech issue with a first amendment issue. It's not a first amendment issue because the first amendment only forbids the government from censoring speech, and private companies are not the government. However, it's still a free speech issue, and it's still a censorship issue. Just not a first amendment issue. Private companies can still censor and can stifle/forbid free speech.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > People are really confusing a free speech issue with a first amendment issue. No, people disagree on the meaning, scope, nature, and purpose of “free speech”, despite agreeing that “free speech” is a good thing. It's true that the First Amendment (especially when combined with incorporation under the 14th) directly embodies a reasonably close approximation of one of the viewpoints of what free speech is all about, while simultaneously looking like a narrow special case of one of the other viewpoints. But the nature of the disagreement here is not confusion between a principle and a legal embodiment of that principle, but a fundamental clash of beliefs about the nature of the named principle.
    - passiveincomelg 8y ago
      This is the risk people take when they are too lazy to host their content themselves.

TheForumTroll 8y ago

Censoring is done by states. Facebook or google removing trolls, tools and pedos isn't censoring.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago
>Censoring is done by states False, we do not live in ancient Rome, so censorship can be done by people who are not government officials. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  False, censorship is done by states. Otherwise would you say that removing spam links from this comment section is "censorship"?
  - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
    Censorship can obviously be done by states, but the definition is not restricted to states only. >Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government or private institution
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      So then we need to allow spam links, in order to not be "censoring"?
      - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
        Email spam filters handle things well I think. Instead of completely censorsing/hiding things from you, suspected spam is placed in a folder that you can view and decide for yourself whether or not it's worth your attention.

atom-morgan 8y ago

I think this would fall under "acceptable censorship" for many at Google.

ansy 8y ago

> Let's leave thought policing to the politicians and the government. That's actually exactly what the First Amendment of the United States Constitution explicitly prevents. What it doens't prevent, though, is what you're actually upset about. Private corporations and individuals can censor all day long in the United States. It's a great misunderstanding that they're somehow not entitled to that.

murph-almighty 8y ago

Except his speech has put innocent people at risk of being harassed, or in physical danger. When they sued he immediately claimed he was the victim. I have no sympathy for Alex Jones. Don't claim free speech to harass people, then get upset when you're sued for harassment.

sdinsn 8y ago

YouTube is a private platform, and they can censor whatever they like. It only interrupts Freedom of Speech if the government influences this censorship. Meanwhile, in China, the government dictates all censorship. Google is required to follow this exactly. Very big difference.