5 ms·

Do you support the right of others to host content you consider violent or garbage?

gizmo 5y ago
In a free society sites like liveleaks and wikileaks absolutely have a right to exist. As well as all the fringe conspiracy sites. The problem with censorship by Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Google is different. Here the government is putting pressure on the tech companies to censor content they don't like. Censor the bad people or risk antitrust action. It's so gross and so clearly in violation of the first amendment. Even elected officials and professors are not exempted. It doesn't matter if you're elected by the people or if you're an expert in your field, if you say something that is considered 'misinformation' by the Ministry of Truth you get censored. It's outrageous, and if big tech doesn't change course we need to start building alternative platforms. But it might already be too late.
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  It doesn’t matter if competing platforms are built. Normal people don’t care one way or another, especially outside of how those other platforms are popularly characterized, so those other platforms will never take off. Only a minority of people are conscious of their liberties and subsequently any potential infringement to them.
  - ShroudedNight 5y ago
    > Normal people don’t care one way or another... As far as I can tell, no shift of the overton window begins with 'normal people', rather it always ends with 'normal people'. Any campaign of this nature is a long and sustained effort over months and years. One requiring that normal people precede them on the wave of change is a guarantee that one will never begin to move in the first place.
  - code_duck 5y ago
    All of the major platforms of today will surely be replaced eventually. Snapchat and TikTok came seemingly out of nowhere in roughly the same FAANG environment as today.
barnesto 5y ago
This is the problem, isn't it? You seem to be posting an easy question to answer. But it's not, is it? Who is Google to judge what anyone would "consider violent or garbage?" I don't remember electing them to control this aspect of life. And where does it stop? What is the line? Who is actually defining these things? When a small group of people control the definition of "wrong think" then we're gonna have a problem regardless of which side of the argument those people are on. While your question is innocent enough, I get the feeling you already knew the answer.
- gwright 5y ago
  > This is the problem, isn't it? You seem to be posting an easy question to answer. But it's not, is it? Who is Google to judge what anyone would "consider violent or garbage?" You aren't even touching on the complexities. The original article was about "misleading content". Google is asserting that they will take action on "content that deceives, misleads, or confuses users". Good grief.
  - throwaways885 5y ago
    Speech is violence nowadays. Silence is also violence. One of these days, I'm going to go live in the woods and no internet. People clearly do not want a free society anymore so I may as well just check out.
    - zo1 5y ago
      If only we could leave our respective countries and self organize voluntarily into new ones. Until then, those of us with kids, can't afford to checkout. We have to secure a future for our children.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
duxup 5y ago
Generally yes, but that depends on what we're talking about exactly. Specifically I noted my willingness to use their services / indirectly support that company if I have the choice.

In a free society sites like liveleaks and wikileaks absolutely have a right to exist. As well as all the fringe conspiracy sites. The problem with censorship by Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Google is different. Here the government is putting pressure on the tech companies to censor content they don't like. Censor the bad people or risk antitrust action. It's so gross and so clearly in violation of the first amendment. Even elected officials and professors are not exempted. It doesn't matter if you're elected by the people or if you're an expert in your field, if you say something that is considered 'misinformation' by the Ministry of Truth you get censored. It's outrageous, and if big tech doesn't change course we need to start building alternative platforms. But it might already be too late.

CyberRabbi 5y ago
It doesn’t matter if competing platforms are built. Normal people don’t care one way or another, especially outside of how those other platforms are popularly characterized, so those other platforms will never take off. Only a minority of people are conscious of their liberties and subsequently any potential infringement to them.
- ShroudedNight 5y ago
  > Normal people don’t care one way or another... As far as I can tell, no shift of the overton window begins with 'normal people', rather it always ends with 'normal people'. Any campaign of this nature is a long and sustained effort over months and years. One requiring that normal people precede them on the wave of change is a guarantee that one will never begin to move in the first place.
- code_duck 5y ago
  All of the major platforms of today will surely be replaced eventually. Snapchat and TikTok came seemingly out of nowhere in roughly the same FAANG environment as today.

barnesto 5y ago

This is the problem, isn't it? You seem to be posting an easy question to answer. But it's not, is it? Who is Google to judge what anyone would "consider violent or garbage?" I don't remember electing them to control this aspect of life. And where does it stop? What is the line? Who is actually defining these things? When a small group of people control the definition of "wrong think" then we're gonna have a problem regardless of which side of the argument those people are on. While your question is innocent enough, I get the feeling you already knew the answer.

gwright 5y ago
> This is the problem, isn't it? You seem to be posting an easy question to answer. But it's not, is it? Who is Google to judge what anyone would "consider violent or garbage?" You aren't even touching on the complexities. The original article was about "misleading content". Google is asserting that they will take action on "content that deceives, misleads, or confuses users". Good grief.
- throwaways885 5y ago
  Speech is violence nowadays. Silence is also violence. One of these days, I'm going to go live in the woods and no internet. People clearly do not want a free society anymore so I may as well just check out.
  - zo1 5y ago
    If only we could leave our respective countries and self organize voluntarily into new ones. Until then, those of us with kids, can't afford to checkout. We have to secure a future for our children.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

duxup 5y ago

Generally yes, but that depends on what we're talking about exactly. Specifically I noted my willingness to use their services / indirectly support that company if I have the choice.