4 ms·

I want to highlight the very common, very dishonest debate trick you just performed. You skipped right past calling the thing for what it is (censorship), past

by MikeUt 5y ago

I want to highlight the very common, very dishonest debate trick you just performed. You skipped right past calling the thing for what it is (censorship), past admitting it's a problem, and you're now arguing against a hypothetical extreme solution no-one has yet proposed. Can we assume that you now agree it's censorship, and that it's a problem, and it's only the solution you proposed that bothers you?

onion2k 5y ago
Can we assume that you now agree it's censorship, and that it's a problem, and it's only the solution you proposed that bothers you? unishark posted that they believe it's censorship, so I asked whether or not it'd be OK for any content to be removed if that's the case. Does unishark think that Facebook 'censoring' some content is actually OK? I don't think it's censorship, and I think Facebook removing content is fine explicitly because it isn't censorious. So no, you can't assume that I now agree it's censorship, because it's not and I don't.
- MikeUt 5y ago
  How do Facebook's actions differ from censorship, then? What would have to be different so that you would consider it censorship?
  - onion2k 5y ago
    Censorship is stopping people seeing content everywhere. Facebook are only stopping people seeing the content on Facebook. The idea that Facebook has a monopoly on video is weird. If someone wanted to grow an audience around their video content would you suggest they post the videos to Facebook to do it?
    - unishark 5y ago
      Network television censors profanity and nudity. Indeed the govt requires much of it. Everyone calls it censorship. Yet you can still see the unedited versions of the same content at a theater or on cable. Maybe if your idea of censorship hinged on govt involvement it might fit a bit better. Though I'd still say we need to be able to talk about censorship by other organizations besides govt, and that the dictionary definition of the word covers this.

by MikeUt 5y ago

onion2k 5y ago

Can we assume that you now agree it's censorship, and that it's a problem, and it's only the solution you proposed that bothers you? unishark posted that they believe it's censorship, so I asked whether or not it'd be OK for any content to be removed if that's the case. Does unishark think that Facebook 'censoring' some content is actually OK? I don't think it's censorship, and I think Facebook removing content is fine explicitly because it isn't censorious. So no, you can't assume that I now agree it's censorship, because it's not and I don't.

MikeUt 5y ago
How do Facebook's actions differ from censorship, then? What would have to be different so that you would consider it censorship?
- onion2k 5y ago
  Censorship is stopping people seeing content everywhere. Facebook are only stopping people seeing the content on Facebook. The idea that Facebook has a monopoly on video is weird. If someone wanted to grow an audience around their video content would you suggest they post the videos to Facebook to do it?
  - unishark 5y ago
    Network television censors profanity and nudity. Indeed the govt requires much of it. Everyone calls it censorship. Yet you can still see the unedited versions of the same content at a theater or on cable. Maybe if your idea of censorship hinged on govt involvement it might fit a bit better. Though I'd still say we need to be able to talk about censorship by other organizations besides govt, and that the dictionary definition of the word covers this.