4 ms·
Absolutely. I find it horrific how, due to politics, we've moved all the way from "censorship is bad" to "we need to stop disinformation" which clearly implies
by isaacremuant 5y ago
Absolutely. I find it horrific how, due to politics, we've moved all the way from "censorship is bad" to "we need to stop disinformation" which clearly implies soft or hard censorship. It also heavily leans to whatever political biases the company has and people think that's perfectly fine because they're getting one over their political opponents.
The end result is that lies become truth and truth becomes lies because dogma spread by tech companies (lobbied by other companies or political groups) is what is pushed and accepted while dissent is punished in varying degrees.
All in the name of "the greater good", non ironically. Seems we learned nothing from fiction or history.
- pydry 5y agoWarnings presented alongside content arent censorship.
- mandmandam 5y agoYou say this as if there isn't widespread confirmed censorship AS WELL, for example, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-lifts-ban-on-posts-claiming-covid-19-was-man-made https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-... That's FB censoring discussion of the origins of a pandemic responsible for millions of deaths, and even banning people who posted about the possibility.
- pydry 5y agoI say that as if "we need to stop disinformation" doesnt necessarily mean "we need censorship". Which it doesnt. I reckon conflating the two actually makes censorship politically easier by implicitly endorsing the view that censorship is the only effective way to combat disinformation at its source.
- smileysteve 5y agoIt has never been "censorship is bad"; it has always been "government censorship is bad" Never has a private newspaper been required to publish every comment or opinion that they receive despite its inaccuracy or obscenity.