4 ms·

> limiting free speech is wrong Enabling the spread of terrorist propaganda, like the blocked websites have been doing by hosting the Christchurch shooting vid

> limiting free speech is wrong Enabling the spread of terrorist propaganda, like the blocked websites have been doing by hosting the Christchurch shooting video. You'd better believe if websites like Twitter and Youtube didn't self-censor ISIS propaganda like they did in 2014, many countries would be having their ISPs block those sites.

huntie 8y ago
Twitter's censorship was wrong, and those countries and ISPs censorship would have been wrong as well. Free speech is a human right and censorship is immoral.
- amanzi 8y ago
  Twitter (and Facebook and any other online site) has Terms of Use policies that all customers must abide by if you want to use their platform. If you don't follow their rules, they can remove your content or your account. That is their right since it's their platform and you agreed to their rules when you signed up. If you don't like their policies you have the freedom to not use their platforms.
  - huntie 8y ago
    This has nothing to do with what I said. When I said it was wrong, I meant in a moral sense. Freedom of speech is a human right, which is ensured in the United States by the first ammendment of the constitution. Twitter is morally culpable for its censorship.
thaumasiotes 8y ago
> if websites like Twitter and Youtube didn't self-censor ISIS propaganda like they did in 2014 People posted ISIS beheading videos to YouTube and caused a policy crisis (within YouTube). YouTube responded by deciding that the beheading videos should stay up because they were newsworthy. As shocking as one of those videos is, it notionally shows why ISIS is bad. Or at least, that's what they said. YouTube simultaneously took down murder videos from South American gangs, on the theory that the gangs uploaded those videos themselves and whatever they wanted, YouTube wanted the opposite. I can't reconcile the two policies. The video shows what it shows. ISIS is, presumably, proud to have its propaganda videos displayed to the world, even if the uploader's accompanying commentary is "how horrible". And by the same token, when a gang uploads one of their own propaganda videos, that video illustrates how horrible the gang is in exactly the same way that ISIS's videos illustrate how horrible ISIS is. They are equally newsworthy. But policy was that uploads of ISIS propaganda videos for the purpose of criticizing ISIS were good, and uploads of gang propaganda videos for the purpose of scaring the local citizenry were bad. The fact that ISIS's local populace might be scared or attracted by propaganda videos, or that people outside of South America might be repulsed by publicly-available gang murder videos, apparently doesn't enter into it -- it's all about whether the uploader is pure of heart.
- apostacy 8y ago
  You're right, it doesn't make sense. Just like it doesn't make sense to hold Gab.com to unreasonably high standards, while letting Twitter and Facebook get away with exactly the same things. YouTube also left up Elliot Rodger's YouTube channel for like three years for similar reasons, until they changed their minds and took them down again. What it looks like to me, is that they just like censoring things and throwing their weight around, and this moral grandstanding is only after the thought.
- AlexCoventry 8y ago
  The shooter's video is pretty weak sauce, compared to ISIS propaganda. It's a really bad look for him and his ideology, even, I imagine, for people who glory in violence. Who imagines that shooting a women in the back of the head as she's lying in the gutter crying for help will cast anything associated with the shooter in a good light?
sintaxi 8y ago
How do we know its terrorist propaganda if its illegal to view it? Motive for reading/sharing obviously needs to be a factor.
int_19h 8y ago
How do you know if they're terrorist propaganda, once they're blocked? IIRC the Australian ISPs refused to even release the list of the websites that they block - what we have is just things that are known not to work. What happened to checks and balances in a democratic society? Why is the private industry acting on its own on behalf of the government? Where's the oversight?

huntie 8y ago

Twitter's censorship was wrong, and those countries and ISPs censorship would have been wrong as well. Free speech is a human right and censorship is immoral.

amanzi 8y ago
Twitter (and Facebook and any other online site) has Terms of Use policies that all customers must abide by if you want to use their platform. If you don't follow their rules, they can remove your content or your account. That is their right since it's their platform and you agreed to their rules when you signed up. If you don't like their policies you have the freedom to not use their platforms.
- huntie 8y ago
  This has nothing to do with what I said. When I said it was wrong, I meant in a moral sense. Freedom of speech is a human right, which is ensured in the United States by the first ammendment of the constitution. Twitter is morally culpable for its censorship.

thaumasiotes 8y ago

> if websites like Twitter and Youtube didn't self-censor ISIS propaganda like they did in 2014 People posted ISIS beheading videos to YouTube and caused a policy crisis (within YouTube). YouTube responded by deciding that the beheading videos should stay up because they were newsworthy. As shocking as one of those videos is, it notionally shows why ISIS is bad. Or at least, that's what they said. YouTube simultaneously took down murder videos from South American gangs, on the theory that the gangs uploaded those videos themselves and whatever they wanted, YouTube wanted the opposite. I can't reconcile the two policies. The video shows what it shows. ISIS is, presumably, proud to have its propaganda videos displayed to the world, even if the uploader's accompanying commentary is "how horrible". And by the same token, when a gang uploads one of their own propaganda videos, that video illustrates how horrible the gang is in exactly the same way that ISIS's videos illustrate how horrible ISIS is. They are equally newsworthy. But policy was that uploads of ISIS propaganda videos for the purpose of criticizing ISIS were good, and uploads of gang propaganda videos for the purpose of scaring the local citizenry were bad. The fact that ISIS's local populace might be scared or attracted by propaganda videos, or that people outside of South America might be repulsed by publicly-available gang murder videos, apparently doesn't enter into it -- it's all about whether the uploader is pure of heart.

apostacy 8y ago
You're right, it doesn't make sense. Just like it doesn't make sense to hold Gab.com to unreasonably high standards, while letting Twitter and Facebook get away with exactly the same things. YouTube also left up Elliot Rodger's YouTube channel for like three years for similar reasons, until they changed their minds and took them down again. What it looks like to me, is that they just like censoring things and throwing their weight around, and this moral grandstanding is only after the thought.
AlexCoventry 8y ago
The shooter's video is pretty weak sauce, compared to ISIS propaganda. It's a really bad look for him and his ideology, even, I imagine, for people who glory in violence. Who imagines that shooting a women in the back of the head as she's lying in the gutter crying for help will cast anything associated with the shooter in a good light?

sintaxi 8y ago

How do we know its terrorist propaganda if its illegal to view it? Motive for reading/sharing obviously needs to be a factor.

int_19h 8y ago

How do you know if they're terrorist propaganda, once they're blocked? IIRC the Australian ISPs refused to even release the list of the websites that they block - what we have is just things that are known not to work. What happened to checks and balances in a democratic society? Why is the private industry acting on its own on behalf of the government? Where's the oversight?