4 ms·

Total censorship doesn't happen overnight. The gates slowly close little by little. Let no good catastrophe go to waste. With each, we lose a little freedom an

Total censorship doesn't happen overnight. The gates slowly close little by little. Let no good catastrophe go to waste. With each, we lose a little freedom and the populace resounds in joy. Not because they want less freedom, no, it's because they think they've triumphed over a common evil: the dissenters. These cycles always include labeling the enemy, and it's usually the ones who disagree or challenge the state. The common man isn't an expert in virology, world politics, or terrorism. Yet, if you look at the ones upholding and defending the position of the state, they're just laymen. Their opinions are fiercely held without question and expertise. All you have to do is label the enemy, make that label an adjective that the average-person would reject at first glance (conspiracy theorist, extremist, etc.), then assign that label to anyone who dissents from the state's position. After that, it's just policymaking for the "greater good".

foolinaround 6y ago
>Total censorship doesn't happen overnight. The gates slowly close little by little. beautifully stated. Or the more common "boiling a frog slowly" If we do not fight for our freedoms, our children will get used to the reduced freedoms as a 'new normal' and it will only get more repressive
- megablast 6y ago
  Or slippery slope.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Boiling a frog slowly is a sound argument against any form of heating even while you are freezing to death. Existing platforms could be misused by private actors in a way that negatively effects the populace. Arguably most of the people presently concerned are either a majority of bad actors or a minority of idealists concerned about future potential. To the worthy minority I would suggest that difficult to censor platforms are probably trivially realizable in mid term especially if substantially desirable or needed. I don't think censorship by platforms like YouTube is being misused now and the massive risk remains censorship by state actors. I suggest we in the short term we encourage people like YouTube to censor more evil idiocy not less while working on maturing decentralized options to the net benefit in the short to mid term as a hedge against tyranny that will virtually certainly primarily remain the province of state actors.
  - foolinaround 6y ago
    > the massive risk remains censorship by state actors the state actors are to an extent, elected by the people. The big corporates have no accountability. > I suggest we in the short term we encourage people like YouTube to censor more evil idiocy You say that because in this narrow issue, you agree with youtube. What is the short term? Have you thought through all the consequences? and still, things will happen that you have not accounted for. everyone is against evil or idiocy. The question is who decides what is? The media's propaganda can and is being used to brainwash the people, and the results are clearly out for all to see.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      Find me something of import to society that is getting suppressed on platforms like YouTube that is deleterious to society? If you say this doctor I will be rather disappointed.
      - foolinaround 6y ago
        Ok, here is one. PragerU got a whole bunch of videos blocked. One of them was about the 10 commandments. about 10 minutes long. One of the commandments was 'Do not murder' the reason youtube gave was that hate words were used. (I am paraphrasing). you really should watch that video with a open mind, look at all the rap videos that exist that talk about murder, violence etc, and make a case for it. -- >"import to society" Again, who decides what is important to society? To me, the pragerU series is very important to my worldview, to you, it could be nonsense. Youtube is clearly biased against it. It is important for you to be able to seek out alternative view points. Currently, these are being buried.
AgentME 6y ago
Do you really think there's someone at YouTube with the goal of increasing censorship for the sake of it, and looking for catastrophes to capitalize on? (Have you ever known anyone in your life that has "censorship" as a hobby, specifically as a terminal end-goal not in service of something else?) Or do you think that maybe the people working at YouTube might be worried about this specific issue -- that their platform could amplify dangerous misinformation about the pandemic -- and they want to reduce the harm they're participating in on this specific issue? (Have you ever known anyone in your life that learned that something they were doing had a bad effect on someone else, and then got worried about that and changed their behavior?) If people at YouTube really liked censorship for the sake of censorship, they would just dive straight into it, or would have done it from the start.

foolinaround 6y ago

>Total censorship doesn't happen overnight. The gates slowly close little by little. beautifully stated. Or the more common "boiling a frog slowly" If we do not fight for our freedoms, our children will get used to the reduced freedoms as a 'new normal' and it will only get more repressive

megablast 6y ago
Or slippery slope.
michaelmrose 6y ago
Boiling a frog slowly is a sound argument against any form of heating even while you are freezing to death. Existing platforms could be misused by private actors in a way that negatively effects the populace. Arguably most of the people presently concerned are either a majority of bad actors or a minority of idealists concerned about future potential. To the worthy minority I would suggest that difficult to censor platforms are probably trivially realizable in mid term especially if substantially desirable or needed. I don't think censorship by platforms like YouTube is being misused now and the massive risk remains censorship by state actors. I suggest we in the short term we encourage people like YouTube to censor more evil idiocy not less while working on maturing decentralized options to the net benefit in the short to mid term as a hedge against tyranny that will virtually certainly primarily remain the province of state actors.
- foolinaround 6y ago
  > the massive risk remains censorship by state actors the state actors are to an extent, elected by the people. The big corporates have no accountability. > I suggest we in the short term we encourage people like YouTube to censor more evil idiocy You say that because in this narrow issue, you agree with youtube. What is the short term? Have you thought through all the consequences? and still, things will happen that you have not accounted for. everyone is against evil or idiocy. The question is who decides what is? The media's propaganda can and is being used to brainwash the people, and the results are clearly out for all to see.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Find me something of import to society that is getting suppressed on platforms like YouTube that is deleterious to society? If you say this doctor I will be rather disappointed.
    - foolinaround 6y ago
      Ok, here is one. PragerU got a whole bunch of videos blocked. One of them was about the 10 commandments. about 10 minutes long. One of the commandments was 'Do not murder' the reason youtube gave was that hate words were used. (I am paraphrasing). you really should watch that video with a open mind, look at all the rap videos that exist that talk about murder, violence etc, and make a case for it. -- >"import to society" Again, who decides what is important to society? To me, the pragerU series is very important to my worldview, to you, it could be nonsense. Youtube is clearly biased against it. It is important for you to be able to seek out alternative view points. Currently, these are being buried.

AgentME 6y ago

Do you really think there's someone at YouTube with the goal of increasing censorship for the sake of it, and looking for catastrophes to capitalize on? (Have you ever known anyone in your life that has "censorship" as a hobby, specifically as a terminal end-goal not in service of something else?) Or do you think that maybe the people working at YouTube might be worried about this specific issue -- that their platform could amplify dangerous misinformation about the pandemic -- and they want to reduce the harm they're participating in on this specific issue? (Have you ever known anyone in your life that learned that something they were doing had a bad effect on someone else, and then got worried about that and changed their behavior?) If people at YouTube really liked censorship for the sake of censorship, they would just dive straight into it, or would have done it from the start.