5 ms·

I'm always bemused to have to say this, but: nobody likes censorship because they enjoy "falling in line". People everywhere support censorship exactly to the d

by knzhou 7y ago

I'm always bemused to have to say this, but: nobody likes censorship because they enjoy "falling in line". People everywhere support censorship exactly to the degree that they agree with the censors. You probably didn't shed a tear when Alex Jones was deplatformed, because he's a scoundrel, and if this really did escalate to a full block of the NBA (which seems unlikely), by that point many Chinese citizens would probably think the same of the NBA.

plandis 7y ago
The difference is that the US government didn’t dictate that Jones be removed.
LocalH 7y ago
This. So much this. Deplatforming is deplatforming. If one supported the deplatforming of Alex Jones, and doesn't also support China on this, then they are a hypocrite engaging in severe cognitive dissonance. Freedom of speech is not some "loophole" that allows people to say nasty things. It's a bulwark against authoritarianism. The ones who forget that need to study world history when it comes to freedom of speech and expression.
- juanjmanfredi 7y ago
  Twitter, Facebook, and any other entity that deplatformed Alex Jones are private companies and can deplatform whoever they want. In fact that is part of their freedom of speech. This is different from government-enforced silencing of speech, which is what is happening in China right now. I feel no cognitive dissonance, but maybe you can explain more why I should.
  - tomp 7y ago
    NBA are not legally controlled by Chinese laws. They're censoring speech because they want to (a.k.a. it's profitable), not because they're being forced to.
    - plandis 7y ago
      What speech is the NBA censoring? The commissioner came out in favor of free speech. The GM has not been fired. On the other hand, the Chinese government has stepped in to block the NBA because of the NBAs stance on free speech of players, staff, etc.
  - mizzack 7y ago
    If you want to see that sort of cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy on display, just go a few threads over and state: > "Blizzard Entertainment is a private company and can deplatform whoever they want".
    - allemagne 7y ago
      Is "cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy" really the only reason you can think of why someone might support deplatforming Alex Jones, and not the Blizzard streamers in this case?
    - papreclip 7y ago
      They might not word it this way, but I think what people really mean is "X is a private company and can deplatform whoever they want with the approval of their users". I haven't seen anyone saying Blizzard's actions should be illegal. The common response seems to be "boycott", which Alex Jones' supporters were free to do as well
  - cbnotfromthere 7y ago
    "Twitter, Facebook, and any other entity that deplatformed Alex Jones are private companies and can deplatform whoever they want" Would you feel the same way if the deplatforming was done by, say, AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile? Because Twitter and Facebook specifically get the same protection as if they are communication pipes (as opposed to being publishers).
- whateveracct 7y ago
  Why are you equating private entities deplatformimg vs government-controlled ones? They are fundamentally different things.
  - LocalH 7y ago
    There is no effective difference between private and public deplatforming. Freedom of expression is harmed by both.
    - plandis 7y ago
      Perhaps but the harm is vastly different in scale. Private banning of speech doesn’t prevent the individual from stating those claims elsewhere. Government mandated banning of speech does prevent that speech from being used elsewhere.
      - golemiprague 7y ago
        Those laws need to be changed because those platforms are the de facto town square and they are a public space. The fact that this public space is maintained by a company is not different a a town square maintained by a private contractor. The virtual public space didn't exist until social networks but now it does so it needs to be treated like any other public space, doesn't matter that some private company facilitate it.
    - whateveracct 7y ago
      Not exactly. If I don't want someone to speak at my event and ban them, that's not the end of the world. There are probably others who would allow them to speak. If the government bans someone from speaking, there is no recourse. This is the state of the world in the USA and one of our cornerstone negative freedoms.
  - m-p-3 7y ago
    With companies out there that makes more in capital than some countries in a single year, the line between private entities and government is harder to discern. How do you get a platform when it is the defacto platform?
juanjmanfredi 7y ago
I agree with your first point. My anecdotal experience of talking to people from China is that there is a very real sense of nationalism that results in deference to the government. The idea is that under this regime the economy has grown strong, and everybody has jobs and food. That is worth the silencing of dissent in a country where mass starvation exists in very recent history. But how long does that last? At some point the people no longer agree with the censors, but the censors likely don't step aside and relinquish power. And to be clear the point at which this happens is probably not losing access to the NBA, but it does exist, and this NBA situation is an interesting barometer. As I said in a different comment, Alex Jones is not that relevant to this discussion unless somebody can show that the United States government had a role in the deplatforming.

by knzhou 7y ago

plandis 7y ago

The difference is that the US government didn’t dictate that Jones be removed.

LocalH 7y ago

This. So much this. Deplatforming is deplatforming. If one supported the deplatforming of Alex Jones, and doesn't also support China on this, then they are a hypocrite engaging in severe cognitive dissonance. Freedom of speech is not some "loophole" that allows people to say nasty things. It's a bulwark against authoritarianism. The ones who forget that need to study world history when it comes to freedom of speech and expression.

juanjmanfredi 7y ago
Twitter, Facebook, and any other entity that deplatformed Alex Jones are private companies and can deplatform whoever they want. In fact that is part of their freedom of speech. This is different from government-enforced silencing of speech, which is what is happening in China right now. I feel no cognitive dissonance, but maybe you can explain more why I should.
- tomp 7y ago
  NBA are not legally controlled by Chinese laws. They're censoring speech because they want to (a.k.a. it's profitable), not because they're being forced to.
  - plandis 7y ago
    What speech is the NBA censoring? The commissioner came out in favor of free speech. The GM has not been fired. On the other hand, the Chinese government has stepped in to block the NBA because of the NBAs stance on free speech of players, staff, etc.
- mizzack 7y ago
  If you want to see that sort of cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy on display, just go a few threads over and state: > "Blizzard Entertainment is a private company and can deplatform whoever they want".
  - allemagne 7y ago
    Is "cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy" really the only reason you can think of why someone might support deplatforming Alex Jones, and not the Blizzard streamers in this case?
  - papreclip 7y ago
    They might not word it this way, but I think what people really mean is "X is a private company and can deplatform whoever they want with the approval of their users". I haven't seen anyone saying Blizzard's actions should be illegal. The common response seems to be "boycott", which Alex Jones' supporters were free to do as well
- cbnotfromthere 7y ago
  "Twitter, Facebook, and any other entity that deplatformed Alex Jones are private companies and can deplatform whoever they want" Would you feel the same way if the deplatforming was done by, say, AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile? Because Twitter and Facebook specifically get the same protection as if they are communication pipes (as opposed to being publishers).
whateveracct 7y ago
Why are you equating private entities deplatformimg vs government-controlled ones? They are fundamentally different things.
- LocalH 7y ago
  There is no effective difference between private and public deplatforming. Freedom of expression is harmed by both.
  - plandis 7y ago
    Perhaps but the harm is vastly different in scale. Private banning of speech doesn’t prevent the individual from stating those claims elsewhere. Government mandated banning of speech does prevent that speech from being used elsewhere.
    - golemiprague 7y ago
      Those laws need to be changed because those platforms are the de facto town square and they are a public space. The fact that this public space is maintained by a company is not different a a town square maintained by a private contractor. The virtual public space didn't exist until social networks but now it does so it needs to be treated like any other public space, doesn't matter that some private company facilitate it.
  - whateveracct 7y ago
    Not exactly. If I don't want someone to speak at my event and ban them, that's not the end of the world. There are probably others who would allow them to speak. If the government bans someone from speaking, there is no recourse. This is the state of the world in the USA and one of our cornerstone negative freedoms.
- m-p-3 7y ago
  With companies out there that makes more in capital than some countries in a single year, the line between private entities and government is harder to discern. How do you get a platform when it is the defacto platform?

juanjmanfredi 7y ago

I agree with your first point. My anecdotal experience of talking to people from China is that there is a very real sense of nationalism that results in deference to the government. The idea is that under this regime the economy has grown strong, and everybody has jobs and food. That is worth the silencing of dissent in a country where mass starvation exists in very recent history. But how long does that last? At some point the people no longer agree with the censors, but the censors likely don't step aside and relinquish power. And to be clear the point at which this happens is probably not losing access to the NBA, but it does exist, and this NBA situation is an interesting barometer. As I said in a different comment, Alex Jones is not that relevant to this discussion unless somebody can show that the United States government had a role in the deplatforming.