4 ms·

Please explain why so many everyday American’s are now repeating Trump’s lies? It’s certainly not for lack of the media pointing them out. There is just much m

Please explain why so many everyday American’s are now repeating Trump’s lies? It’s certainly not for lack of the media pointing them out. There is just much more to it than that. I also didn’t see anyone making these arguments when YouTube and other platforms said they were going to target content the helps radicalize Muslims. There needs to be some middle ground where we can protect those being targeted and protect free-speech.

jki275 8y ago
Did I say anything about Trump? My comment was a broad based comment about censorship of ideas. I don't recall YouTube making any such comment, perhaps I missed it. I don't think they've been successful if they even tried.
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  Point me to evidence of broad censorship please because the discussion is about Trump. And if this is an issue that concerns you more broadly I’m not sure how you could possibly miss the dozens or hundreds of news stories about online platforms trying to combat extremism. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-tech-giants-join-forces-to-target-terrorist-propaganda-online/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-tech-giants-join-forces...
  - jki275 8y ago
    deleted and reposted with the correct parent post -- not sure how I made that mistake above. There's been broad based discussion about most of the major web platforms deplatforming speech they don't agree with. If you haven't heard about it you've had your head stuck in the sand, or more likely you simply agree with it because you agree with deplatforming those with whom you disagree. That's not an abnormal thing, most people would gladly take away their political opponents' ability to speak if they could get away with it. That's why it's important we don't allow it -- it's the "when they came for..." argument. Your link talks about speech that specifically calls for violence and is credibly not covered by the first amendment. That's a bit different than the free exchange of ideas.
    - alphabettsy 8y ago
      Most of the terrorist propaganda actually does not directly call for violence. Their recruiting is almost identical to white supremacist or other extremist propaganda. Them saying “we must fight the infidels” or “strike back against the western imperialists” isn’t much different from people saying “we must take our country back”, “we must secure a future for white children”, or “there is an ongoing white genocide by the globalist elite.” The problem is where it leads and all the damage it does to society because most extremism starts seemingly benign, until it isn’t. I don’t want people with differing opinions on healthcare, abortion, civil rights, etc. to be banned, but to me it’s more than a difference in political opinion when someone suggests people I care about are subhuman or citizens should be removed from the country by the millions. Your “when they came for...” argument is actually a reference to a historical quote about the targeting of groups by the Nazi party. It’s hard for me to see the people wanting not to be labeled evil, subhuman, and criminal as playing the role of the Nazis in this case or how you could compare being told you can’t Tweet disgusting falsehoods with imprisonment or extermination.
      - jki275 8y ago
        First, I don't think you've ever seen any terrorist propaganda. I have. It absolutely calls for violence. What you fail to realize is that those particular groups are recruiting into organizations that explicitly require violence against anyone who disagrees with them. I know it's popular to pretend that isn't true, it's just an "internal struggle" or whatever, but that's simply not the case. When they say "we must fight the infidels", they literally mean, we're going to take up arms and go and murder all the infidels, specifically including as many noncombatants as we can find. In general, people speaking in America aren't calling for that. I don't agree with what you refer to that they're advocating, and I think the right way to combat it is to argue why they're wrong, but they're not advocating murder of innocents. Those who do are falling afoul of the restrictions that have been allowed on speech and should be dealt with accordingly - making threats isn't legal. I'm well aware of where the comment came from. Again, restricting speech you disagree with is a slippery slope, and that's why we don't do it -- or didn't, until it became fashionable to shut down all forms of conservative discussion on media that has become left wing propaganda arms.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jki275 8y ago

Did I say anything about Trump? My comment was a broad based comment about censorship of ideas. I don't recall YouTube making any such comment, perhaps I missed it. I don't think they've been successful if they even tried.

alphabettsy 8y ago
Point me to evidence of broad censorship please because the discussion is about Trump. And if this is an issue that concerns you more broadly I’m not sure how you could possibly miss the dozens or hundreds of news stories about online platforms trying to combat extremism. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-tech-giants-join-forces-to-target-terrorist-propaganda-online/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-tech-giants-join-forces...
- jki275 8y ago
  deleted and reposted with the correct parent post -- not sure how I made that mistake above. There's been broad based discussion about most of the major web platforms deplatforming speech they don't agree with. If you haven't heard about it you've had your head stuck in the sand, or more likely you simply agree with it because you agree with deplatforming those with whom you disagree. That's not an abnormal thing, most people would gladly take away their political opponents' ability to speak if they could get away with it. That's why it's important we don't allow it -- it's the "when they came for..." argument. Your link talks about speech that specifically calls for violence and is credibly not covered by the first amendment. That's a bit different than the free exchange of ideas.
  - alphabettsy 8y ago
    Most of the terrorist propaganda actually does not directly call for violence. Their recruiting is almost identical to white supremacist or other extremist propaganda. Them saying “we must fight the infidels” or “strike back against the western imperialists” isn’t much different from people saying “we must take our country back”, “we must secure a future for white children”, or “there is an ongoing white genocide by the globalist elite.” The problem is where it leads and all the damage it does to society because most extremism starts seemingly benign, until it isn’t. I don’t want people with differing opinions on healthcare, abortion, civil rights, etc. to be banned, but to me it’s more than a difference in political opinion when someone suggests people I care about are subhuman or citizens should be removed from the country by the millions. Your “when they came for...” argument is actually a reference to a historical quote about the targeting of groups by the Nazi party. It’s hard for me to see the people wanting not to be labeled evil, subhuman, and criminal as playing the role of the Nazis in this case or how you could compare being told you can’t Tweet disgusting falsehoods with imprisonment or extermination.
    - jki275 8y ago
      First, I don't think you've ever seen any terrorist propaganda. I have. It absolutely calls for violence. What you fail to realize is that those particular groups are recruiting into organizations that explicitly require violence against anyone who disagrees with them. I know it's popular to pretend that isn't true, it's just an "internal struggle" or whatever, but that's simply not the case. When they say "we must fight the infidels", they literally mean, we're going to take up arms and go and murder all the infidels, specifically including as many noncombatants as we can find. In general, people speaking in America aren't calling for that. I don't agree with what you refer to that they're advocating, and I think the right way to combat it is to argue why they're wrong, but they're not advocating murder of innocents. Those who do are falling afoul of the restrictions that have been allowed on speech and should be dealt with accordingly - making threats isn't legal. I'm well aware of where the comment came from. Again, restricting speech you disagree with is a slippery slope, and that's why we don't do it -- or didn't, until it became fashionable to shut down all forms of conservative discussion on media that has become left wing propaganda arms.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]