11 ms·

The interesting thing about this is that nationalism is in general associated with right-leaning politics, and the censorship is far and away being applied more

The interesting thing about this is that nationalism is in general associated with right-leaning politics, and the censorship is far and away being applied more aggressively to those very same right-leaning nationalist groups. You would be hard pressed to find liberal / progressive content being censored online.

artursapek 6y ago
Exactly. There's nothing "nationalist" about the type of censorship we're seeing on Twitter. If anything it's the opposite.
- leanstartupnoob 6y ago
  Which government agency is censoring Twitter? Conservatives and libertarians LOVE to bleat about property rights, but they can't handle it when private parties won't provide free advertising for right-wing conspiracies.
  - artursapek 6y ago
    I'm not aware of any govt agency censoring Twitter - only conservatives complaining that Twitter is censoring their tweets.
  - FriendlyNormie 6y ago
    Just wait until your favorite social media companies have their data centers raided by Trump for trying to overthrow the US government and are nationalized and converted into nonprofit taxpayer-funded instruments of the first amendment you little faggot. We’ll have your full name and address at that point too. Don’t worry, we won’t kill you, we have far worse plans for you than death.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - lliamander 6y ago
    What we LOVE is a market free of force and fraud, and we love rule of law. Within that there are very nuanced conversations to be had about when the threshold for force or fraud has been reached. Enforcement of contracts is essential to a healthy society, but is it good to enforce a contract where one party either lied or coerced the other to sign? No, or at least not necessarily. The nature of the contract between social media platforms and their users (both explicit and implicit) has changed dramatically since the days that Twitter was "the free speech wing of the free speech party". Users have sacrificed a increasing amount of privacy for less and less obvious benefit. In the meantime, many people have come to depend upon these services for connecting with others, for their livelihoods, and for news independent of corporate media. Have the social media companies deceived their users? Or have they forced unconscionable terms upon their users? Have they violated consumer protection laws? I am not a lawyer. I don't know the answers to those questions. But I do know that there are some lawyers and judges who do think that some of these social media companies have overstepped. We don't necessarily need a civil rights case, or a constitutional amendment, or even to repeal Section 230. All I think is necessary is for existing contract and consumer protection laws be litigated and enforced. This kind of action would benefit both left and right, and I think is more constructive than opportunistically deciding that "businesses can do whatever they want" when you think it only hurts people on the right.
    - leanstartupnoob 6y ago
      Twitter is a private company with zero legal authority to enforce anything other than not sharing your tweets. Be honest that you really want to use the force of government laws to mandate that Twitter spreads your version of free speech across the platform paid for and developed by Twitter.
      - lliamander 6y ago
        I honestly think you should stop trying to read minds. You aren't very good at it. Perhaps you should try reading my words instead and responding to them rather than the imaginary things you pretend I actually think? It might work out better.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    Private censorship is still censorship, and when large monopolies or cartels dominate the market, it can be just as damaging.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    You’ve learned how to do a straw man. Next, try your hand at the steel man. Feel free to look it up!
- free_rms 6y ago
  There's a strong undercurrent of Scary Foreign Election Interference to a lot of the pro-censorship arguments, FWIW.
r00fus 6y ago
From the article: > "Poland blocked human rights sites; India same-sex dating sites" Clearly that's the wheelhouse of the right-leaning national groups, right? Oh, maybe not. Or maybe it's the rightwing nationalist governments cracking down on disadvantaged groups?
- war1025 6y ago
  I admit I didn't read the article before commenting. Really just seems like anyone that can get away with it is censoring people with differing opinions. Seems like something that will surely end well /s
  - r00fus 6y ago
    Amusing how when it's aligned with your viewpoints (suppression of speech for rightwing groups), it's partisan. Otherwise, it's "anyone can get away with it". Hypocrisy on display
    - war1025 6y ago
      You misread my comment, which fair enough the wording wasn't great. What I actually said is "anyone who can get away with it" And obviously they would be doing it for partisan reasons.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> You would be hard pressed to find liberal / progressive content being censored online. No, I wouldn't. https://fair.org/home/that-facebook-will-turn-to-censoring-the-left-isnt-a-worry-its-a-reality/ https://fair.org/home/that-facebook-will-turn-to-censoring-t... I might have to work harder to find high-traffic social-media accounts peddling stories about the left being censored online than finding the same thing about the right. But, if so, would that really be evidence that the right was being censored more, or just that its complaints are being amplified more by the very same platforms they claim to be selectively censoring them?
- amznthrwaway 6y ago
  The right is full of people who are free to use media to talk about how they can't use media. because the right is full of complete and total liars who lack even the tiniest shred of integrity.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  The whole discussion is sapir-whorfed hard by the fake left-right nomenclature. Old-school-leftists, such as communists and socialists are catching ban-hammers, yes that's true. "Pronoun-left" on the other hand is not.
mattnewton 6y ago
> You would be hard pressed to find liberal / progressive content being censored online. I think this is a false dichotomy. Whenever speech calls for violence that upsets the current social-political order in the US, it is censored regardless of being "left" or "right;" one example being the very-left chapo trap house crowd on reddit. My understanding that there is less violent content coming from voices identified as "progressives" that tend to value other more acceptable* methods for social change. * Acceptable meaning something different per platform, but if we are being honest seems to usually mean "can sell mainstream ads space alongside them"
paxys 6y ago
Huh? It's the exact opposite. In the US sites like Facebook & Twitter routinely refuse to censor conservative content even if it is against their policies because they are afraid of pissing off Republicans in Congress. A "liberal" on Facebook calling for the beheading of a conservative politican would be banned (possibly even arrested) immediately. The opposite can and does happen every day, with no penalty. And all this still isn't relevant because we are talking about government censorship.
- war1025 6y ago
  Since my experience is the complete political reverse of what you describe (liberals getting away with things that conservatives assume they never could), I think the real answer is that probably there is less censorship in general than people assume. And I suppose that's probably a good thing. > And all this still isn't relevant because we are talking about government censorship. Agreed that the article is about government censorship, and I commented before I read the article. However, given that the US government at least has shown very little backbone in its threats to regulate social media companies, their tendency toward more censorship also seems concerning.
- EasyTiger_ 6y ago
  Are you intentionally trying to gaslight people? This is just straight up false. See Kathy Griffin holding a bloody Trump - a tweet which she’s retweeted multiple times.
- ojbyrne 6y ago
  I think that the right has moved the Overton Window so much to the right that they see things that most of the world would see as mainstream (Black Lives Matter, Abortion, Medicare for All, Defund the Police, Anti-Fascism etc) as extreme.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    None of those things, properly understood[1], were in any way mainstream until very recently. And arguably still aren't mainstream. [1] Obviously, black lives do matter and fascism is bad, but as slogans "Black Lives Matter" and "Anti-Fascism" represent very radical political programs. You should be as suspicious of these slogans as I assume you are of slogans like "All Lives Matter" and "Anti-Communism".
Fauntleroy 6y ago
I have no idea how you can keep telling yourself that when the top 10 shared links on Facebook have been nothing but conservative conspiracy theories for over 12 months straight.
- war1025 6y ago
  Facebook is taking a much more hands-off approach than Twitter.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  That is irrelevant to the claim. Facebook doesn’t share links, the users do. The allegation of bias are associated with inconsistent and/or incorrect applications of their rules.
amznthrwaway 6y ago
From the article: > "Poland blocked human rights sites; India same-sex dating sites" What you are complaining about is that right-wingers are sometimes banned by private sites in the US because they advocate genocide and other contemptible actions.
logicslave 6y ago
"You would be hard pressed to find liberal / progressive content being censored online." You must be joking? Twitter, Google, FB, the blatantly partisan censorship?

artursapek 6y ago

Exactly. There's nothing "nationalist" about the type of censorship we're seeing on Twitter. If anything it's the opposite.

leanstartupnoob 6y ago
Which government agency is censoring Twitter? Conservatives and libertarians LOVE to bleat about property rights, but they can't handle it when private parties won't provide free advertising for right-wing conspiracies.
- artursapek 6y ago
  I'm not aware of any govt agency censoring Twitter - only conservatives complaining that Twitter is censoring their tweets.
- FriendlyNormie 6y ago
  Just wait until your favorite social media companies have their data centers raided by Trump for trying to overthrow the US government and are nationalized and converted into nonprofit taxpayer-funded instruments of the first amendment you little faggot. We’ll have your full name and address at that point too. Don’t worry, we won’t kill you, we have far worse plans for you than death.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lliamander 6y ago
  What we LOVE is a market free of force and fraud, and we love rule of law. Within that there are very nuanced conversations to be had about when the threshold for force or fraud has been reached. Enforcement of contracts is essential to a healthy society, but is it good to enforce a contract where one party either lied or coerced the other to sign? No, or at least not necessarily. The nature of the contract between social media platforms and their users (both explicit and implicit) has changed dramatically since the days that Twitter was "the free speech wing of the free speech party". Users have sacrificed a increasing amount of privacy for less and less obvious benefit. In the meantime, many people have come to depend upon these services for connecting with others, for their livelihoods, and for news independent of corporate media. Have the social media companies deceived their users? Or have they forced unconscionable terms upon their users? Have they violated consumer protection laws? I am not a lawyer. I don't know the answers to those questions. But I do know that there are some lawyers and judges who do think that some of these social media companies have overstepped. We don't necessarily need a civil rights case, or a constitutional amendment, or even to repeal Section 230. All I think is necessary is for existing contract and consumer protection laws be litigated and enforced. This kind of action would benefit both left and right, and I think is more constructive than opportunistically deciding that "businesses can do whatever they want" when you think it only hurts people on the right.
  - leanstartupnoob 6y ago
    Twitter is a private company with zero legal authority to enforce anything other than not sharing your tweets. Be honest that you really want to use the force of government laws to mandate that Twitter spreads your version of free speech across the platform paid for and developed by Twitter.
    - lliamander 6y ago
      I honestly think you should stop trying to read minds. You aren't very good at it. Perhaps you should try reading my words instead and responding to them rather than the imaginary things you pretend I actually think? It might work out better.
- int_19h 6y ago
  Private censorship is still censorship, and when large monopolies or cartels dominate the market, it can be just as damaging.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  You’ve learned how to do a straw man. Next, try your hand at the steel man. Feel free to look it up!
free_rms 6y ago
There's a strong undercurrent of Scary Foreign Election Interference to a lot of the pro-censorship arguments, FWIW.

r00fus 6y ago

From the article: > "Poland blocked human rights sites; India same-sex dating sites" Clearly that's the wheelhouse of the right-leaning national groups, right? Oh, maybe not. Or maybe it's the rightwing nationalist governments cracking down on disadvantaged groups?

war1025 6y ago
I admit I didn't read the article before commenting. Really just seems like anyone that can get away with it is censoring people with differing opinions. Seems like something that will surely end well /s
- r00fus 6y ago
  Amusing how when it's aligned with your viewpoints (suppression of speech for rightwing groups), it's partisan. Otherwise, it's "anyone can get away with it". Hypocrisy on display
  - war1025 6y ago
    You misread my comment, which fair enough the wording wasn't great. What I actually said is "anyone who can get away with it" And obviously they would be doing it for partisan reasons.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> You would be hard pressed to find liberal / progressive content being censored online. No, I wouldn't. https://fair.org/home/that-facebook-will-turn-to-censoring-the-left-isnt-a-worry-its-a-reality/ https://fair.org/home/that-facebook-will-turn-to-censoring-t... I might have to work harder to find high-traffic social-media accounts peddling stories about the left being censored online than finding the same thing about the right. But, if so, would that really be evidence that the right was being censored more, or just that its complaints are being amplified more by the very same platforms they claim to be selectively censoring them?

amznthrwaway 6y ago
The right is full of people who are free to use media to talk about how they can't use media. because the right is full of complete and total liars who lack even the tiniest shred of integrity.
im3w1l 6y ago
The whole discussion is sapir-whorfed hard by the fake left-right nomenclature. Old-school-leftists, such as communists and socialists are catching ban-hammers, yes that's true. "Pronoun-left" on the other hand is not.

mattnewton 6y ago

> You would be hard pressed to find liberal / progressive content being censored online. I think this is a false dichotomy. Whenever speech calls for violence that upsets the current social-political order in the US, it is censored regardless of being "left" or "right;" one example being the very-left chapo trap house crowd on reddit. My understanding that there is less violent content coming from voices identified as "progressives" that tend to value other more acceptable* methods for social change. * Acceptable meaning something different per platform, but if we are being honest seems to usually mean "can sell mainstream ads space alongside them"

paxys 6y ago

Huh? It's the exact opposite. In the US sites like Facebook & Twitter routinely refuse to censor conservative content even if it is against their policies because they are afraid of pissing off Republicans in Congress. A "liberal" on Facebook calling for the beheading of a conservative politican would be banned (possibly even arrested) immediately. The opposite can and does happen every day, with no penalty. And all this still isn't relevant because we are talking about government censorship.

war1025 6y ago
Since my experience is the complete political reverse of what you describe (liberals getting away with things that conservatives assume they never could), I think the real answer is that probably there is less censorship in general than people assume. And I suppose that's probably a good thing. > And all this still isn't relevant because we are talking about government censorship. Agreed that the article is about government censorship, and I commented before I read the article. However, given that the US government at least has shown very little backbone in its threats to regulate social media companies, their tendency toward more censorship also seems concerning.
EasyTiger_ 6y ago
Are you intentionally trying to gaslight people? This is just straight up false. See Kathy Griffin holding a bloody Trump - a tweet which she’s retweeted multiple times.
ojbyrne 6y ago
I think that the right has moved the Overton Window so much to the right that they see things that most of the world would see as mainstream (Black Lives Matter, Abortion, Medicare for All, Defund the Police, Anti-Fascism etc) as extreme.
- lliamander 6y ago
  None of those things, properly understood[1], were in any way mainstream until very recently. And arguably still aren't mainstream. [1] Obviously, black lives do matter and fascism is bad, but as slogans "Black Lives Matter" and "Anti-Fascism" represent very radical political programs. You should be as suspicious of these slogans as I assume you are of slogans like "All Lives Matter" and "Anti-Communism".

Fauntleroy 6y ago

I have no idea how you can keep telling yourself that when the top 10 shared links on Facebook have been nothing but conservative conspiracy theories for over 12 months straight.

war1025 6y ago
Facebook is taking a much more hands-off approach than Twitter.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
That is irrelevant to the claim. Facebook doesn’t share links, the users do. The allegation of bias are associated with inconsistent and/or incorrect applications of their rules.

amznthrwaway 6y ago

From the article: > "Poland blocked human rights sites; India same-sex dating sites" What you are complaining about is that right-wingers are sometimes banned by private sites in the US because they advocate genocide and other contemptible actions.

logicslave 6y ago

"You would be hard pressed to find liberal / progressive content being censored online." You must be joking? Twitter, Google, FB, the blatantly partisan censorship?