7 ms·
Are we really so stupid that we cannot see through this kind of thing and need to actively censor it to have civilized society continue to function? When do we
by arsome 6y ago
Are we really so stupid that we cannot see through this kind of thing and need to actively censor it to have civilized society continue to function?
When do we just give up on democracy completely?
- Gabriel_Martin 6y agoMany seem to have been completely taken in to it, yes. And given it seems to have lead to deadly consequences already, I don't think it's unreasonable for these companies to consider it a huge liability.
- jtbayly 6y agoAre you aware of what other things have led to deadly consequences? Communism, socialism, green terrorism, and self driving cars come to mind.
- bun_at_work 6y agoThis is simply whataboutism.
- jtbayly 6y agoNo it’s not. The post I’m responding to made a case for why censorship is fine in this case. That reason applies very very broadly. If we are ok with that reason, then we are ok with that reason, and we must acknowledge what else is caught in that net.
- bun_at_work 6y ago> If we are ok with that reason, then we are ok with that reason, ... This is a slippery-slope fallacy. Facebook removing content containing speech directly associated with highly illegal activity doesn't mean the country is becoming socialist.
- jtbayly 6y agoI have no idea what you are talking about. I never said it was becoming socialist. I gave a simple warning that the reason is enough to silence vast swaths of public discourse.
- Gabriel_Martin 6y agoTotally, and then you have unfettered capitalism and corporatism, kakistocracies, oligarchies and lawn darts. Unfortunately, unlike all of those things, the FBI, Homeland Security[1] and Congress [2] actually found that white supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States. So, when social networks' legal/liability or moderation teams take action on the precise content that was used to foment a coup, it's not terribly shocking from a legal perspective. 1: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-... 2: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894/BILLS-116s894is.xml https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894/BILLS-116s894is.xml
- jtbayly 6y agoStopTheSteal is not a slogan of white supremacists. In fact, it has nothing to do with white supremacism. Are you saying that 60 million or so people in the US are white supremacists?
- Gabriel_Martin 6y agoThat's not a very generous interpretation of what I said.
- jtbayly 6y agoThat’s how many people think there was funny business in this election, IIRC, so what exactly are you saying if it isn’t that 60M people are extremists who need to have their voices silenced?
- Gabriel_Martin 6y agoThe number of people repeating misinformation isn't really relevant. You really seem to leverage many various fallacies, like slippery slope and argument from incredulity. My exact statement was, in context to the facts about white supremacy and far right extremists, both groups having a well documented presence at the attempted coup, that when social networks' legal/liability or moderation teams take action on the precise content that was used to foment a coup, it's not terribly shocking from a legal perspective. You seem to be shocked though, why is that?
- quacker 6y agoYou are underestimating the power of misinformation.
- sibeliuss 6y agoAfter 60+ court cases challenging the election fail, and half the population still believe it's stolen, we're completely beyond the realm of misinformation (though there's plenty of that still going on). One side simply wants to seize power and is leveraging the tools at its disposal to do so.
- lumost 6y agoI'm very interested in whether the republican party splits away from it's base - or the moderates leave altogether. One can claim that it's a small portion of the republican party which supported the insurrection - but for the last 10 years that portion has pushed the rest of the party to vote their way.
- jkoudys 6y agoThe split may come from Pence, interestingly enough. It didn't take much for Trump to malign his VP two weeks from the end of his term. Pence was chosen to satisfy the evangelicals, who are another similar group to the MAGAs in that they're not the mainstream republicans, but enjoy enormous influence.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- MattGaiser 6y agoAt this point "stop the steal" is essentially a rallying cry for militant action. Civilized society rapidly stops functioning if that action comes to fruition.
- jowsie 6y agoHave you checked the news the last few days? Plenty of people out there are stupid enough to fall for this and much worse.
- eznzt 6y agoWhich is exactly the point. Why keep being a democracy when we don't trust the voters to do the right thing?
- BHSPitMonkey 6y agoThe posts in question are there to organize an armed assault next week, before the inauguration. The literal planning of an illegal act is where the "free exchange of ideas" argument falls flat. Your rhetorical question reads to me no differently than "Why bother giving people freedom in the first place if we're just going to punish them whenever they murder someone? We might as well just drop the pretense and imprison everybody by default"
- thatguy0900 6y agoSome of the richest companies in the world are actively dedicated to pushing people to the fringes because they make more money that way. Blaming voters seems a little unfair to me.
- mkolodny 6y agoThe voters voted out the current president. "Stop the steal" is an attempt to override the voters' decision.
- jrs235 6y agoWe use to call representatives, particularly Senators, Statesmen. They were elected to represent the interests of their State [government] and not that of the people or themselves.
- bun_at_work 6y agoYou'd have a valid point here if all people were 100% rational actors with perfect knowledge and agency. Unfortunately, they aren't.
- dsnr 6y ago> Unfortunately, they aren't. Yet they are allowed to drive cars, fly planes, raise children, buy guns and vote but somehow cannot decide for themselves what’s good or bad, and need a higher moral entity like Facebook to babysit them. I find this a weak argument.
- BHSPitMonkey 6y agoFacebook is under no obligation to assist in planning and organizing an attempted mass killing event. Neither are you or I, which is how it should stay.
- sheepdestroyer 6y agoBeside voting and children, most of the time people need a permit/license to show that they are fit to do the things you mention. I don't know what a way to show that you are a rational, well informed, mentally fit citizen able to responsibly vote without falling for basic fakes news and misinformation attacks would be. At least denial of reality should raise serious questions. How can we expect a flat earther, 6000year-old-world believer, climate change and holocaust denier to rationally chose who to put at the helm of a country? Politics should be about people disagreeing on the means to address a set of common challenges, not about those who imagine living in another world so far removed from ours that they can't have a valuable opinion.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- giantg2 6y agoI completely agree. I would like to see some of the other replies here comment on how democracy can function if the citizens are incompetent/stupid. If they can't be trusted to be knowledgeable, then how can they make informed decisions, including voting? And of course, who decides which people hold legitimate positions and which people are ignorant?
- bun_at_work 6y agoIt is well known that an educated, free people are necessary for the functioning of democracy. It's part of the justification for the 1st Amendment. We have new technologies which are being leveraged to intentionally misinform people, in a society that has degraded public education and raised the cost of higher education to levels prohibitive for the majority of the population, and as a result, the society (as a whole) is no longer sufficiently informed. So, how can democracy function if the citizens are not educated? It can't. We are now seeing the results of the effects mentioned above, and the tech companies in question are starting to realize it, and respond in only way they can, while still maintaining their own wealth and power.
- rayiner 6y agoThe US is one of the most educated countries in the world! Only Korea and Canada are materially ahead of us in college attainment: https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/with-atlanta-mayor-vote-fabled-bipartisan-alliance-comes-end/5yX2nnMifu2RVBeOEjR46O/ https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/with... We’re way ahead of Germany or Italy. The America that sent a man to the moon had around 5% of people with a college degree.
- chillfox 6y agoSure, but as someone not from the US it looks like that education ain't worth much in the US as you deliberately undermine peoples ability to learn critical thinking by teaching creationism in schools.
- 6y ago
- zappo2938 6y ago‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’ Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947 Don't give up on democracy. It is hard. Nonetheless, it will always remain the best form of government we have seen. The United States Constitution is resilient as it has proven time and time again.
- evanelias 6y agoFor historical context, it may be worth noting that the framers of the US constitution did not envision having direct popular election of the President [1], nor of senators [2]. To be clear, I'm not indicating that the framers had the right idea about this. Rather, just mentioning that the risks of under-informed general populace exercising direct democratic election has been under consideration since the nation's founding. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Evolution_to_the_general_ticket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_U...
- DubiousPusher 6y agoNot just that. They were basically counting on a farely elite electorate being established in most states. Universal Manhood Suffrage wasn't even really an issue in the American revolution the way it was in the French Rev. Even through the progressive era when some of these things changed, parties were more powerful and they definitely filtered popular intent. And that way more than today. We didn't have small 'd' democratic presidential primaries until the 70s and this last one was the first for the Democrats.
- jsight 6y agoI don't really understand how that is relevant to the OP's question about censorship. Did the framers also think that censoring the views of the POTUS would be required? EDIT: Although going along with your point, I also remember the framers wanting the electors to be determined at the local level (district) rather than state. That would change things significantly, IMO.
- pmiller2 6y agoThe question was "are we really so stupid that..." The answer, at least according to the Framers, as implied by their actions, is "yes."
- rayiner 6y agoIndirect selection of the executive reduces the populist power of the President. They have to win votes of party members, not the public at large.
- hertzrat 6y agoThe issue is that there is a clear risk to democracy and everyone is in a panic to figure out how to save the democracy - so extreme measures seem okay to people temporarily and in this instance. It’s just that the different sides have the opposite idea of what the risk is and what those measures should be... everyone on both sides is so panicked right now
- yuppie_scum 6y agoYes. Yes we are.
- Consultant32452 6y agohttps://graymirror.substack.com/p/the-great-coup-of-2021 https://graymirror.substack.com/p/the-great-coup-of-2021 >Once power loses its mask, once censoring dissent because it makes a mockery of the government is not just what power is doing, but actually what power says it’s doing, we enter a new stage of history—because serving this power is openly humiliating to the servant. Or at least, to any servant of intelligence, wisdom, conscience and character. >At this stage, therefore, power is actively recruiting its own counter-elite. There is only one way to produce a regime change that sticks: a circulation of the elites. Therefore, we have taken a genuine step toward history. The gigantic gear has moved one click.
- lucasyvas 6y agoThe answer is, most likely, yes. Please do not take this statement as malice - I'm an outside observer, but I believe the massive failings of the US education system are well documentated. There is nothing wrong with conservatism, but for whatever reason there is a strong correlation between the right (at least in the last few years) and poor education. I'd say most here can probably figure it out. I'm not saying I never get duped, but I can at least spot a total conman when I see one. It would appear many cannot.
- pfdietz 6y agoSimply propagating the meme could put Facebook at risk for providing aid or comfort to an insurrection.