4 ms·
It would be helpful for people who have previously come out against cancel culture and deplatforming to defend the principle for someone who is not a member of
by motohagiography 6y ago
It would be helpful for people who have previously come out against cancel culture and deplatforming to defend the principle for someone who is not a member of their political tribe. Independent of the content of the video and who it happened to offend, the deceptive practice of shadow banning is reprehensible.
Tar-pitting spammers is one thing, deceiving creators, especially ones who are politically engaged as to the impact of their work discredits the legitimacy of the platforms, and the agencies. Are the government agencies "persons," deserving protection in this case?
A major part of the problem is the language platforms use in their alerts, which is patronizing, gaslighting, and from what I have read in posts like these, basically enraging (which is what their business does best, so no surprises there).
If platforms would use language that made it clear they owned their role as referees it would go a lot more smoothly, and mitigate the effects of this "for your own good," deception bit. Of course I see it as the effect of platform employees who culturally reject the idea of binding principles in favour of exercising arbitrary power, but if that's not going to change, they can't reasonably complain about explosive reactions to their "dynamic choices" either.
- mellosouls 6y agoIt would be helpful for people who have previously come out against cancel culture and deplatforming to defend the principle for someone who is not a member of their political tribe Granted. Principle defended and censorship of other political tribes condemned. So does that mean we now get an apology from the other lot if the tables have indeed turned?
- happytoexplain 6y agoThis is pretty snarky.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoNo more so than the original comment's presumption that "people who have previously come out against cancel culture and deplatforming" only care about the issue as some kind of tribal marker. I don't want to defend tit-for-tat snark, but it's super frustrating to see people making snide remarks about this issue even as it starts to affect their own beliefs.
- motohagiography 6y agoNot snide at all. They're only principles if we defend them when it's hardest to do so.
- mellosouls 6y agoI'm (the "snarky" comment) a man of the left who has been appalled by the use of free speech suppression tactics over the last few years by my supposed political fellow travellers to intimidate those on the right, and like many others have persistently and continuously challenged them in defence of those I sometimes disagree fundamentally with. So yes, they are principles deeply held and I'm not about to take any implications (intended or not) from your original comment they are not. FWIW
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI'm happy to defend the principle and oppose what happened, but I think you're confused about the mechanism here. The anti-cancel-culture tribe isn't a natural or pre-existing political grouping; it's just the growing set of people whose positions have become cancellable. Within a few years, I expect that stances against shadowbanning and maybe even proposals to abolish the CIA will get you categorized as part of the anti-cancel-culture tribe.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago> "It would be helpful for people who have previously come out against cancel culture and deplatforming to defend the principle for someone who is not a member of their political tribe." Very well, as a liberal, I duly condemn this deplatforming. All people who claim to believe in the tenets of Enlightenment liberalism should.
- waterhouse 6y agoAll right. To establish the tribal difference: I see "Second Thought is creating Leftist Educational Videos", one of which is called "You're Probably Already a Socialist", and some comments on his Twitter seem to establish him as either a socialist or at least very sympathetic to socialism; as a libertarian who currently sees the left as more dangerous and authoritarian than the right, this makes me say "Oh dear, oh no." And now: Assuming he is correct about what's happening, I say that Youtube is cowardly and they suck for suppressing his video, and for being cagey about it; and the DHS giving him a physical visit seems like clearly an intimidation tactic and one of the early stages of authoritarian evil.