3 ms·

You can call this censorship if you like, but it's not the kind of censorship the government imposes. Anti-vaxxers are perfectly welcome to start their own web

You can call this censorship if you like, but it's not the kind of censorship the government imposes. Anti-vaxxers are perfectly welcome to start their own website. No penalty is imposed when they share their misinformation. This is closer in spirit to a newspaper refusing to publish someone's letter.

blfr 8y ago
Except this newspaper publishes all letters from all comers making it fairly obvious censorship. "Start your own website" is a brush-off when faced with corporate cenosrhip. People have tried it. Daily Stormer had several domains pulled, Gab had payment processors and Google Play ban them. There is a very real problem with corporate harassment for views their management finds worthy of targeting and people are dismissing it because they like the targeting. For now anyway.
- nkozyra 8y ago
  > People have tried it. Daily Stormer had several domains pulled, Gab had payment processors and Google Play ban them. I don't see this as a "problem," per se. There are no guarantees in life that you will have unfettered access to services like this, particularly if you use them in a manner the providers deem against their terms.
- armada651 8y ago
  Just because you have freedom of expression doesn't mean everyone is obligated to listen to it and pay you money for it. "Freedom of expression" is just that, the freedom to voice your opinion. It's not the "Right of attention". Furthermore, like any freedom there are limitations when your freedom starts endangering the freedom of others. We don't allow hate speech and death threats, so where does anti-vax fit in?
  - blfr 8y ago
    I like the way Eric Weinstein put it. “I don’t believe that we can afford to take a neutral stance anymore. I don’t believe that we should optimize for neutrality..” -@jack Glad to hear it. And, because you just changed your view on neutrality, I just changed mine on anti-trust, eminent domain and tech platforms. https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1095457572314787840 https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/109545757231478784... It's true. These platforms don't owe users a freedom to voice their opinions. But since they're making editorial decisions, we, as a society, don't owe them protection from libel laws for example. And we should definitely look into monopolistic practices of VISA and Mastercard because it's much more serious than some microblogging site.
- RoadRunner2 8y ago
  Youtube does not publishes everything that is uploaded what are you talking about? Youtube doesn't accept porn for example, which is why people that want to share entirely legal videos of consenting adults having sex created their own platforms to do it. You never hear complaints from them about being censored. Because they were not. When did it became acceptable to go into someone's house, start shouting about some crazy religion, then act surprised crying censorship and oppression when they finally ask you to leave?
Udik 8y ago
Would you react in the same way if they were demonetising videos about something you consider fair and legitimate? For example gay rights? The problem here is not whether we consider anti-vax as a legitimate battle, but if we're comfortable in giving a private company the power to decide which opinions should be promoted and which should be silenced.
- armada651 8y ago
  The real problem here is having a single company that's so big and powerful that they have the power to impose censorship. We either need government regulations for these companies or they should be split up. This problem goes further than freedom of expression.
- Calloggs 8y ago
  Please don't equivocate gay rights and anti-vaccination. One is a trait many people are born with that does not harm others; the other is a choice that can and often does harm others.

blfr 8y ago

Except this newspaper publishes all letters from all comers making it fairly obvious censorship. "Start your own website" is a brush-off when faced with corporate cenosrhip. People have tried it. Daily Stormer had several domains pulled, Gab had payment processors and Google Play ban them. There is a very real problem with corporate harassment for views their management finds worthy of targeting and people are dismissing it because they like the targeting. For now anyway.

nkozyra 8y ago
> People have tried it. Daily Stormer had several domains pulled, Gab had payment processors and Google Play ban them. I don't see this as a "problem," per se. There are no guarantees in life that you will have unfettered access to services like this, particularly if you use them in a manner the providers deem against their terms.
armada651 8y ago
Just because you have freedom of expression doesn't mean everyone is obligated to listen to it and pay you money for it. "Freedom of expression" is just that, the freedom to voice your opinion. It's not the "Right of attention". Furthermore, like any freedom there are limitations when your freedom starts endangering the freedom of others. We don't allow hate speech and death threats, so where does anti-vax fit in?
- blfr 8y ago
  I like the way Eric Weinstein put it. “I don’t believe that we can afford to take a neutral stance anymore. I don’t believe that we should optimize for neutrality..” -@jack Glad to hear it. And, because you just changed your view on neutrality, I just changed mine on anti-trust, eminent domain and tech platforms. https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1095457572314787840 https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/109545757231478784... It's true. These platforms don't owe users a freedom to voice their opinions. But since they're making editorial decisions, we, as a society, don't owe them protection from libel laws for example. And we should definitely look into monopolistic practices of VISA and Mastercard because it's much more serious than some microblogging site.
RoadRunner2 8y ago
Youtube does not publishes everything that is uploaded what are you talking about? Youtube doesn't accept porn for example, which is why people that want to share entirely legal videos of consenting adults having sex created their own platforms to do it. You never hear complaints from them about being censored. Because they were not. When did it became acceptable to go into someone's house, start shouting about some crazy religion, then act surprised crying censorship and oppression when they finally ask you to leave?

Udik 8y ago

Would you react in the same way if they were demonetising videos about something you consider fair and legitimate? For example gay rights? The problem here is not whether we consider anti-vax as a legitimate battle, but if we're comfortable in giving a private company the power to decide which opinions should be promoted and which should be silenced.

armada651 8y ago
The real problem here is having a single company that's so big and powerful that they have the power to impose censorship. We either need government regulations for these companies or they should be split up. This problem goes further than freedom of expression.
Calloggs 8y ago
Please don't equivocate gay rights and anti-vaccination. One is a trait many people are born with that does not harm others; the other is a choice that can and often does harm others.