5 ms·

I think the understanding is that US so far hasn't pushed into law any policy instructing companies like Apple to publicly censor people. Secret surveillance an

I think the understanding is that US so far hasn't pushed into law any policy instructing companies like Apple to publicly censor people. Secret surveillance and privacy has been debated, but not freedom of speech. The US has not used the kind of public censorship used by other countries to facilitate an oppressive autocracy. The US government tends to use one of the four horsemen, CSAM, drugs, terrorism, or organized crime as motivation to deploy censorship and undermine privacy but freedom of speech is generally protected. Foreign governments censor things like undesirable political opposition, LGBTQ+ activism, women's rights activism, and historical events like the massacre of protestors. I think the implication is that the technology is likely to do a lot more harm in other countries compared to the harm done in the US, so "it's okay" if it's only deployed in the US in the name of saving children. A lot of people from the US are strongly against the Apple policy regardless.

noasaservice 5y ago
When the very mainstream news media is under the same financial umbrella of all the defense contractors, is it no surprise we see the "undesirable political opposition, LGBTQ+ activism, women's rights activism, and historical events like the massacre of protestors" covered up or not even reported on to begin with?
- gfrff 5y ago
  I don't think any of those are offensive to defense contractors, etc. Polarizing the public on these issues is exactly the way to haves the public turn a blind eye took graft.
- herbstein 5y ago
  Herman & Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" proposes the method through which the media influence isn't by way of "old men in a dark, smoky backroom" as the claim conjures images of. Rather, it's a series of filters that funnel like-minded people into the decision-making roles of the companies. If we simplify it a lot, it's the claim that a CEO is very likely to hire a senior editor that shares his views on the world, that editor in turn hires writers with a similar outlook on the world, etc. etc. Likewise, promotions within these companies is predicated on this same mechanism. To the question "Do you think all journalists are self-censoring? Do you think I'm self-censoring?", posed by the BBC's Andrew Marr, Chomsky answered "I think you believe everything you're saying because if you didn't you wouldn't be sitting here". Both quotes paraphrased but meaning-preserving. [0] This is 1 of 5 filters laid out in "Manufacturing Consent". It's, in my eyes, a very compelling analytical framework. [0]: https://youtu.be/lLcpcytUnWU?t=176 https://youtu.be/lLcpcytUnWU?t=176 - Video title is terribly divisive but the quote is at the timestamp. The whole 3 minute video just gives a bit of context to why the question is asked. It also cuts off as Andrew Marr is about to say something, making the video's title bunk. Viewer beware.
howaboutnope 5y ago
> deploy censorship [..] but freedom of speech is generally protected Can you elaborate a little? I understand and agree with your overarching point but this bit threw me.
- knaik94 5y ago
  It does seem like an oxymoron at a superficial level, but if you look into freedom of speech, there's an implicit assumption that the speech isn't inciting violence or harm. I can have any opinion I want about any other person and I can use any medium I want to share my opinion. I can make political cartoons that are racy, buy a megaphone and protest in front of the white house, make memes and share them all over the web. I wouldn't get in trouble for having unpopular or even conspiracy level opinions. If I'm encouraging people to do something violent and it's clear that I'm not making an edgy joke, that might start to fall under terrorism and the government will look into how valid and serious I am as a threat. All of the four horsemen can be simplified to intentionally harming other people at a serious and maybe grand scale. The US government has a very clear line that they draw for when they will get involved. So I do think that freedom of speech is generally protected in the US. In the context of this discussion, I can voice any type of opinion I want about the government without any repercussions. It's been ruled in the supreme court that even hate speech is protected as long as there's no imminent threat of violence.
drivingmenuts 5y ago
We’ve been through all “for the children” brouhaha before: War on Rock Mudic Lyrics, War on Drugs, etc. It happens ny time a parent with influence decides that what’s best for their children is good for all children. It doesn’t take a village - it just takes a mom with a loud voice.
tremon 5y ago
US so far hasn't pushed into law any policy instructing companies like Apple to publicly censor people That depends on your definition. It sure looks like WikiLeaks was targeted by the US government. It also surely looks like the credit card monopolists are cracking down globally on sex sites because of changes in US law. From where I stand, it looks like the US government is using corporate monopolies as a front to censor people.
- knaik94 5y ago
  The common sentiment in the US is that Mega Corporations have government influence that they shouldn't, not the other way around. Wikileaks was seen as a national security threat because it leaked files in an unredacted form. Wikileaks has even released sensitive personal information like credit card numbers and social security numbers. The reason Wikileaks was targeted after the election was because it was seen as a front for Russian manipulation in the US elections. And unfortunately Sex Workers in the US have always had a hard time with payment processors. The law you're talking about went into effect in 2018, FOSTA-SESTA, and was painted as a law to help fight sex trafficking. Backpage was was the reason the law went into effect and that website was used for sex trafficking. Safer sights got caught up in the new law. From what I have read the change in handling OnlyFans might have been a response to the BBC investigation about how the site dealt with people posting illegal content. [1] They used a warning system instead of immediate consequences for people that brought in a lot of users and revenue. It's also not just US laws. Both US COPPA and EU AVMSD laws on porn and age verification made YouTube ask for credit cards or a driver's license in order to verify your age. The UK has much stricter rules on the type of porn you can consume and make, the US is relatively wild in comparison. [2] The US definitely has issues but if any country can be blamed for draconian sex policies, I would argue it's the UK. Internet filtering was implemented "for the children" starting back in 2013. 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58255865 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58255865 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_U...

noasaservice 5y ago

When the very mainstream news media is under the same financial umbrella of all the defense contractors, is it no surprise we see the "undesirable political opposition, LGBTQ+ activism, women's rights activism, and historical events like the massacre of protestors" covered up or not even reported on to begin with?

gfrff 5y ago
I don't think any of those are offensive to defense contractors, etc. Polarizing the public on these issues is exactly the way to haves the public turn a blind eye took graft.
herbstein 5y ago
Herman & Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" proposes the method through which the media influence isn't by way of "old men in a dark, smoky backroom" as the claim conjures images of. Rather, it's a series of filters that funnel like-minded people into the decision-making roles of the companies. If we simplify it a lot, it's the claim that a CEO is very likely to hire a senior editor that shares his views on the world, that editor in turn hires writers with a similar outlook on the world, etc. etc. Likewise, promotions within these companies is predicated on this same mechanism. To the question "Do you think all journalists are self-censoring? Do you think I'm self-censoring?", posed by the BBC's Andrew Marr, Chomsky answered "I think you believe everything you're saying because if you didn't you wouldn't be sitting here". Both quotes paraphrased but meaning-preserving. [0] This is 1 of 5 filters laid out in "Manufacturing Consent". It's, in my eyes, a very compelling analytical framework. [0]: https://youtu.be/lLcpcytUnWU?t=176 https://youtu.be/lLcpcytUnWU?t=176 - Video title is terribly divisive but the quote is at the timestamp. The whole 3 minute video just gives a bit of context to why the question is asked. It also cuts off as Andrew Marr is about to say something, making the video's title bunk. Viewer beware.

howaboutnope 5y ago

> deploy censorship [..] but freedom of speech is generally protected Can you elaborate a little? I understand and agree with your overarching point but this bit threw me.

knaik94 5y ago
It does seem like an oxymoron at a superficial level, but if you look into freedom of speech, there's an implicit assumption that the speech isn't inciting violence or harm. I can have any opinion I want about any other person and I can use any medium I want to share my opinion. I can make political cartoons that are racy, buy a megaphone and protest in front of the white house, make memes and share them all over the web. I wouldn't get in trouble for having unpopular or even conspiracy level opinions. If I'm encouraging people to do something violent and it's clear that I'm not making an edgy joke, that might start to fall under terrorism and the government will look into how valid and serious I am as a threat. All of the four horsemen can be simplified to intentionally harming other people at a serious and maybe grand scale. The US government has a very clear line that they draw for when they will get involved. So I do think that freedom of speech is generally protected in the US. In the context of this discussion, I can voice any type of opinion I want about the government without any repercussions. It's been ruled in the supreme court that even hate speech is protected as long as there's no imminent threat of violence.

drivingmenuts 5y ago

We’ve been through all “for the children” brouhaha before: War on Rock Mudic Lyrics, War on Drugs, etc. It happens ny time a parent with influence decides that what’s best for their children is good for all children. It doesn’t take a village - it just takes a mom with a loud voice.

tremon 5y ago

US so far hasn't pushed into law any policy instructing companies like Apple to publicly censor people That depends on your definition. It sure looks like WikiLeaks was targeted by the US government. It also surely looks like the credit card monopolists are cracking down globally on sex sites because of changes in US law. From where I stand, it looks like the US government is using corporate monopolies as a front to censor people.

knaik94 5y ago
The common sentiment in the US is that Mega Corporations have government influence that they shouldn't, not the other way around. Wikileaks was seen as a national security threat because it leaked files in an unredacted form. Wikileaks has even released sensitive personal information like credit card numbers and social security numbers. The reason Wikileaks was targeted after the election was because it was seen as a front for Russian manipulation in the US elections. And unfortunately Sex Workers in the US have always had a hard time with payment processors. The law you're talking about went into effect in 2018, FOSTA-SESTA, and was painted as a law to help fight sex trafficking. Backpage was was the reason the law went into effect and that website was used for sex trafficking. Safer sights got caught up in the new law. From what I have read the change in handling OnlyFans might have been a response to the BBC investigation about how the site dealt with people posting illegal content. [1] They used a warning system instead of immediate consequences for people that brought in a lot of users and revenue. It's also not just US laws. Both US COPPA and EU AVMSD laws on porn and age verification made YouTube ask for credit cards or a driver's license in order to verify your age. The UK has much stricter rules on the type of porn you can consume and make, the US is relatively wild in comparison. [2] The US definitely has issues but if any country can be blamed for draconian sex policies, I would argue it's the UK. Internet filtering was implemented "for the children" starting back in 2013. 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58255865 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58255865 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_U...