4 ms·

Free Speech isn't the direct issue here. YouTube and other social media platforms are engaged in an exploitive bait and switch, which happens to collide with t

Free Speech isn't the direct issue here. YouTube and other social media platforms are engaged in an exploitive bait and switch, which happens to collide with the speech issues. However, the core issue is one where speech is just the game ball. Social Media platforms tell creators and their fans that they will act as "platforms" for the creator's free expression -- provided it's in line with the "Terms of Service." However, it the "Terms of Service" is a bugaboo. Social Media platforms are effectively manipulating the speech of their creators to tell their own ideological message, using censorship, the threat of demonetization, the threat of de-platforming, and the manipulative denial of viral spread -- in uncountable cases, with no reasonable connection to their terms of service. It would be one thing, if this were always actually to "preserve the value of their platform for advertisers" or some such, but the record bears out in innumerable instances that many of their actions are the grinding of an ideological axe by lower level company functionaries. This is a bait and switch. With one hand, the platforms are saying, "We will serve as your conduit," then with the other hand, they are saying, "You will send the ideological message that we want you to say, or else!" Many will say that this is their right as a private company. No private company has the right to say they will do one thing, but then dishonestly do the opposite through murky deception and threats. The record of illogical, nonsensical, and weird contortions "platforms" go through to hide ideological manipulation is legion. If a full accounting were entered into the record in a court of law, and if discovery to uncover collusion in such activities were carried out, I predict that it wouldn't go well for Big Tech. They know this, are afraid of this, and this explains their behavior to a T.

BFatts 6y ago
Censorship, by a company? On their own platform? How is that possible? As far as I know, only government cannot abridge your right to speech. A platform, like a store, has the right to remove those that use their platform to promote speech counter to the owner of the platform.
- stcredzero 6y ago
  Time to burn some karma to debunk some popular incorrect understandings. Censorship, by a company? On their own platform? How is that possible? It happens all the time. As far as I know, only government cannot abridge your right to speech. False. Marsh v. Alabama. A company owning a company town, owning the roads and sidewalks, can't use the power of their property rights to abridge your right of speech. Read the ruling and do the math: A private company absolutely can abridge someone's free speech! It's mainly the case that US laws cover the circumstance of the government abridging your speech. However, it's common sense that powerful entities, like mega-corporations, can also squelch a person's speech. Sometimes this is also illegal, though not always. This is clear in US case law. You've been lied to about this, basically, by people with an ideological axe to grind. (Probably unintentionally through wishful thinking.) A platform, like a store, has the right to remove those that use their platform to promote speech counter to the owner of the platform. If the platform is doing that straight-up, explicitly, then sure, they can do that. They can put political affiliation right in their Terms of Service. However, if they are accomplishing this as a bait and switch, saying they're doing one thing, then doing another, then that's clearly not right. If people are engaged in interstate commerce while colluding between companies to do this, then maybe this should fall under RICO. I hope so, anyhow.
  - igetspam 6y ago
    So then these media platforms are in collusion AND own the internet? I'm not one to throw foil ball hats around because I have plenty of my own but your security systems must be awesome.
    - stcredzero 6y ago
      So then these media platforms are in collusion They've been doing quite the dance to keep out of discovery. AND own the internet? Facebook et al control a lot of internet traffic through their users. Many of their users still treat their platform like it is the internet.
      - gremlinsinc 6y ago
igetspam 6y ago
To this I say: prove it. You've put forth a strong argument (we'll ignore the relevance for a minute), full of fanciful accusations but it lacks detail or corroborating evidence. If you want to say these platforms are sexist, I can point you to the You Look Like a Man page on instagram, where they've cataloged it. But you seem to be claiming an agenda. Cite your credible sources.
- stcredzero 6y ago
  A catalog would be quite a tall order, because the numbers are huge. A reduction of scope would be pragmatic. You could start by searching out all of the medical experts who were censored for talking about Hydroxychloroquine. Not necessarily for advocacy, but just for reporting on it. There are even instances of medical academic papers which were censored off of Twitter for linking the PDF to the paper. You could also do a survey of people talking about censorship and deplatforming just on YouTube, particularly when complaining about YouTube's capriciousness with regards to rules, policies, and terms of service. It will be never ending!
  - jfengel 6y ago
    If you want to make a case that it's a persistent and pervasive problem, you'd do best by not starting with an exceptional case. Not only is it too recent to really make a case for it being common, but the straightforward reply will always be that it was an emergency situation during a pandemic and therefore subject to factors other than the claimed political bias. Making a case for a pervasive bias is going to require a lot of data, because any kind of intuitive "But they're against me!" claim is going to be subject to all lot of well-known cognitive biases. All numbers involving social media are large, so simply claiming that "the numbers are huge" doesn't make for a very compelling case, either. So if you want to get people interested in your argument, you should start gathering those numbers so you can make a more informative case than the one that leaps to the forefront of your mind.

BFatts 6y ago

Censorship, by a company? On their own platform? How is that possible? As far as I know, only government cannot abridge your right to speech. A platform, like a store, has the right to remove those that use their platform to promote speech counter to the owner of the platform.

stcredzero 6y ago
Time to burn some karma to debunk some popular incorrect understandings. Censorship, by a company? On their own platform? How is that possible? It happens all the time. As far as I know, only government cannot abridge your right to speech. False. Marsh v. Alabama. A company owning a company town, owning the roads and sidewalks, can't use the power of their property rights to abridge your right of speech. Read the ruling and do the math: A private company absolutely can abridge someone's free speech! It's mainly the case that US laws cover the circumstance of the government abridging your speech. However, it's common sense that powerful entities, like mega-corporations, can also squelch a person's speech. Sometimes this is also illegal, though not always. This is clear in US case law. You've been lied to about this, basically, by people with an ideological axe to grind. (Probably unintentionally through wishful thinking.) A platform, like a store, has the right to remove those that use their platform to promote speech counter to the owner of the platform. If the platform is doing that straight-up, explicitly, then sure, they can do that. They can put political affiliation right in their Terms of Service. However, if they are accomplishing this as a bait and switch, saying they're doing one thing, then doing another, then that's clearly not right. If people are engaged in interstate commerce while colluding between companies to do this, then maybe this should fall under RICO. I hope so, anyhow.
- igetspam 6y ago
  So then these media platforms are in collusion AND own the internet? I'm not one to throw foil ball hats around because I have plenty of my own but your security systems must be awesome.
  - stcredzero 6y ago
    So then these media platforms are in collusion They've been doing quite the dance to keep out of discovery. AND own the internet? Facebook et al control a lot of internet traffic through their users. Many of their users still treat their platform like it is the internet.
    - gremlinsinc 6y ago

igetspam 6y ago

To this I say: prove it. You've put forth a strong argument (we'll ignore the relevance for a minute), full of fanciful accusations but it lacks detail or corroborating evidence. If you want to say these platforms are sexist, I can point you to the You Look Like a Man page on instagram, where they've cataloged it. But you seem to be claiming an agenda. Cite your credible sources.

stcredzero 6y ago
A catalog would be quite a tall order, because the numbers are huge. A reduction of scope would be pragmatic. You could start by searching out all of the medical experts who were censored for talking about Hydroxychloroquine. Not necessarily for advocacy, but just for reporting on it. There are even instances of medical academic papers which were censored off of Twitter for linking the PDF to the paper. You could also do a survey of people talking about censorship and deplatforming just on YouTube, particularly when complaining about YouTube's capriciousness with regards to rules, policies, and terms of service. It will be never ending!
- jfengel 6y ago
  If you want to make a case that it's a persistent and pervasive problem, you'd do best by not starting with an exceptional case. Not only is it too recent to really make a case for it being common, but the straightforward reply will always be that it was an emergency situation during a pandemic and therefore subject to factors other than the claimed political bias. Making a case for a pervasive bias is going to require a lot of data, because any kind of intuitive "But they're against me!" claim is going to be subject to all lot of well-known cognitive biases. All numbers involving social media are large, so simply claiming that "the numbers are huge" doesn't make for a very compelling case, either. So if you want to get people interested in your argument, you should start gathering those numbers so you can make a more informative case than the one that leaps to the forefront of your mind.