6 ms·

What if I’m enthusiastically against censorship and enthusiastically for deplatforming in cases like Trump? Which makes me strongly dislike the news in the post

What if I’m enthusiastically against censorship and enthusiastically for deplatforming in cases like Trump? Which makes me strongly dislike the news in the post.

jedimastert 6y ago
I'm not arguing for or against anything, but those views seem opposed to each other. Can you talk more about how you can allow for any form of de-platforming while also feeling strongly against censorship?
- jtr1 6y ago
  I'd guess you could point at the metaphor implied in the word "de-platforming." Free speech doesn't necessitate that every person gets a stage and a microphone. If we were in a physical auditorium and the president started encouraging violence among the audience, is it a violation of free speech for the theatre to cut his mic? That said, I'm still conflicted about this. I think it's possible to believe both that 1) there is a material threat of violence from continuing to give the president the equivalent of a giant megaphone, and 2) giving private corporations unilateral decisions-making power over who gets a platform is probably not in the long-term best interests of democracy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dleslie 6y ago
  Censorship is the Government stating that person A must not communicate with person B. Deplatforming/cancelling is person C _asking_ person A not to communicate with person B, under threat of person C no longer communicating with person A.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Censorship is the Government stating that person A must not communicate with person B. Your statement is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."
    - dleslie 6y ago
      The key, in the wiki definition, is: > controlling bodies My point still holds. Asking a company to deplatform someone under threat of boycott is not censorship; because no individual user is in control of the platform.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        It listed controlling bodies in a list that also contained "private institutions". So, according to the wiki definition, it states multiple times, all over that article, that private companies can censor people, and it fits with in that definition. > a company to deplatform A private institution can absolutely censor people though. So what you are describing is an individual advocating in favor of censorship. Here is another quote from the article " It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations either at the behest of government or on their own initiative."
        dleslie 6y ago
        That's being overly reductive; akin to stating that Christian Mingle censors Atheist or Muslim views because they focus on a Christian market. Or that Steam censors by not approving all content. At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaniong beyond curation. The company is choosing to narrow its market focus; it tried to facilitate person's B and C, but C is forcing them to choose. That's curation, not censorship.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > That's being overly reductive No it isn't. It is literally the definition that is on wikipedia. That is a very good authority on definitions for things. > At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaning beyond curation. Sure it does. The meaning is quite clear in the article, which is a relevant authority on the issue. Private companies can censor people. That is the definition, and the relevant authorities on the matter agree that it is. Most definitions that you find with agree with me that private companies can censor people. This is not controversial, and most definitions agree with me.
  - chr1 6y ago
    Person C threatening to no longer communicate with person A, is different than person C threatening to do additional work to not conduct business with person A. This kind of weaponization of everyday business does not lead to anything good. And just like we would condemn shop owner refusing to sell to a customer based on race/hair color/ clothing style we need to condemn twitter refusing service to sci-hub, to Trump, or even to actual murderers like Xi/Putin/Aliyev. Even your example of deplatforming is a very questionable practice, for instance it is often used by cults like Jehovah Witnesses to disallow followers talking with family members who leave the cult.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      Freedom of Association is a fundamental freedom in many countries, for good reason. I'll happily avoid services that happily and stubbornly provide platforms to white nationalists and similar wretches, like Parler and Gab, and it certainly does not bother me that such platforms may not welcome me. Cults and similar certainly do use their ability to sever association to control their membership, but making that step and severing those bonds frees those same members from the harm of the cult.
      - chr1 6y ago
        There is difference between association and between singling out someone and refusing service that would be at no additional cost to you. Twitter not only banned Trumps account, but also sci-hub account which is far from being a "wretch" and has contributed immensely to science. If we include social media service providers into "cancellation" wars the result will be too costly for the society, so we need better ways to fight against nationalists. Sacrificing freedom of speech to a group applying unknown rules, without a mechanism to appeal, will be harmful in the long run, even though this time it have produced a result we like.
        dleslie 6y ago
        I fail to see the critical distinction between refusing to associate and refusing to engage with, or how the freedom of association can be upheld without the ability to refuse such engagement. We must provide social media services with protected freedoms, or we risk impinging upon the freedoms of its users. Users must be free to choose social media which allows them to _not_ associate or communicate with those they do not wish to. Nor should we compel them to support speech that they do not wish to, for similar reasons. If your concern is whether certain legal speech may be effectively completely deplatformed, then may I suggest the solution is federated social networking and not to impugn the freedom of association.
- bluntfang 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance it's a big hard to grasp, but just because you are for something doesn't mean you can't be against an individual participating in the thing you're for doing bad stuff.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    That is a good theoretical argument but in practice Trumps opinions are mainstream enough to garner tens of millions of votes in support. Being intolerant of the representative of somewhere between 20% and 40% of the country (accounting for turnout) is not a sustainable strategy. Ignoring even 10% of a country is a recipe for great pain.
nickysielicki 6y ago
Then you’re not against censorship.
selfhoster11 6y ago
Deplatforming is a kind of censorship. With social media monopolies in place, deplatforming is effectively removing someone's voice altogether, so basically the same as censorship.
throwaway201103 6y ago
"If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
refurb 6y ago
Deplatforming is a form of censorship.

What if I’m enthusiastically against censorship and enthusiastically for deplatforming in cases like Trump? Which makes me strongly dislike the news in the post.

jedimastert 6y ago

I'm not arguing for or against anything, but those views seem opposed to each other. Can you talk more about how you can allow for any form of de-platforming while also feeling strongly against censorship?

jtr1 6y ago
I'd guess you could point at the metaphor implied in the word "de-platforming." Free speech doesn't necessitate that every person gets a stage and a microphone. If we were in a physical auditorium and the president started encouraging violence among the audience, is it a violation of free speech for the theatre to cut his mic? That said, I'm still conflicted about this. I think it's possible to believe both that 1) there is a material threat of violence from continuing to give the president the equivalent of a giant megaphone, and 2) giving private corporations unilateral decisions-making power over who gets a platform is probably not in the long-term best interests of democracy.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dleslie 6y ago
Censorship is the Government stating that person A must not communicate with person B. Deplatforming/cancelling is person C _asking_ person A not to communicate with person B, under threat of person C no longer communicating with person A.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Censorship is the Government stating that person A must not communicate with person B. Your statement is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."
  - dleslie 6y ago
    The key, in the wiki definition, is: > controlling bodies My point still holds. Asking a company to deplatform someone under threat of boycott is not censorship; because no individual user is in control of the platform.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      It listed controlling bodies in a list that also contained "private institutions". So, according to the wiki definition, it states multiple times, all over that article, that private companies can censor people, and it fits with in that definition. > a company to deplatform A private institution can absolutely censor people though. So what you are describing is an individual advocating in favor of censorship. Here is another quote from the article " It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations either at the behest of government or on their own initiative."
      - dleslie 6y ago
        That's being overly reductive; akin to stating that Christian Mingle censors Atheist or Muslim views because they focus on a Christian market. Or that Steam censors by not approving all content. At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaniong beyond curation. The company is choosing to narrow its market focus; it tried to facilitate person's B and C, but C is forcing them to choose. That's curation, not censorship.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > That's being overly reductive No it isn't. It is literally the definition that is on wikipedia. That is a very good authority on definitions for things. > At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaning beyond curation. Sure it does. The meaning is quite clear in the article, which is a relevant authority on the issue. Private companies can censor people. That is the definition, and the relevant authorities on the matter agree that it is. Most definitions that you find with agree with me that private companies can censor people. This is not controversial, and most definitions agree with me.
- chr1 6y ago
  Person C threatening to no longer communicate with person A, is different than person C threatening to do additional work to not conduct business with person A. This kind of weaponization of everyday business does not lead to anything good. And just like we would condemn shop owner refusing to sell to a customer based on race/hair color/ clothing style we need to condemn twitter refusing service to sci-hub, to Trump, or even to actual murderers like Xi/Putin/Aliyev. Even your example of deplatforming is a very questionable practice, for instance it is often used by cults like Jehovah Witnesses to disallow followers talking with family members who leave the cult.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    Freedom of Association is a fundamental freedom in many countries, for good reason. I'll happily avoid services that happily and stubbornly provide platforms to white nationalists and similar wretches, like Parler and Gab, and it certainly does not bother me that such platforms may not welcome me. Cults and similar certainly do use their ability to sever association to control their membership, but making that step and severing those bonds frees those same members from the harm of the cult.
    - chr1 6y ago
      There is difference between association and between singling out someone and refusing service that would be at no additional cost to you. Twitter not only banned Trumps account, but also sci-hub account which is far from being a "wretch" and has contributed immensely to science. If we include social media service providers into "cancellation" wars the result will be too costly for the society, so we need better ways to fight against nationalists. Sacrificing freedom of speech to a group applying unknown rules, without a mechanism to appeal, will be harmful in the long run, even though this time it have produced a result we like.
      - dleslie 6y ago
        I fail to see the critical distinction between refusing to associate and refusing to engage with, or how the freedom of association can be upheld without the ability to refuse such engagement. We must provide social media services with protected freedoms, or we risk impinging upon the freedoms of its users. Users must be free to choose social media which allows them to _not_ associate or communicate with those they do not wish to. Nor should we compel them to support speech that they do not wish to, for similar reasons. If your concern is whether certain legal speech may be effectively completely deplatformed, then may I suggest the solution is federated social networking and not to impugn the freedom of association.
bluntfang 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance it's a big hard to grasp, but just because you are for something doesn't mean you can't be against an individual participating in the thing you're for doing bad stuff.
- roenxi 6y ago
  That is a good theoretical argument but in practice Trumps opinions are mainstream enough to garner tens of millions of votes in support. Being intolerant of the representative of somewhere between 20% and 40% of the country (accounting for turnout) is not a sustainable strategy. Ignoring even 10% of a country is a recipe for great pain.

nickysielicki 6y ago

Then you’re not against censorship.

selfhoster11 6y ago

Deplatforming is a kind of censorship. With social media monopolies in place, deplatforming is effectively removing someone's voice altogether, so basically the same as censorship.

throwaway201103 6y ago

"If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

refurb 6y ago

Deplatforming is a form of censorship.