4 ms·

The difference from what I see is that Republicans are attacking Facebook for censoring too much, while Democrats are attacking Facebook for censoring too littl

by jwond 5y ago

The difference from what I see is that Republicans are attacking Facebook for censoring too much, while Democrats are attacking Facebook for censoring too little.

mbg721 5y ago
Only because of the nature of the censored content; Republicans aren't inherently as anti-censorship as the libertarian wing would like to hope they are. Social media are the fourth-and-a-half estate, and they're flexing their muscles for the other party.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  I haven't seen any calls from any Republicans to censor any speech. Their base is very adamant about the Bill of Rights. Do you have any examples to back up your statement? Keep in mind we're talking about silencing political dissent, that's pretty fucking major, not a "oh both sides do it, that's life" thing.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    I'm thinking more of the Satanism scares of the 80s. Republicans have never really had the mass-media on their side post-Watergate (except maybe briefly after 9/11), so they can't silence anyone in the "fortifying the election" sense.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    Marco Rubio just proposed a bill to stop corporations from being too "woke"[1]. There are also numerous instances of Republican politicians complaining or proposing bills about things like athletes kneeling during the anthem, burning of the flag, or other forms of expressions they deem "un-American". That's not even mentioning the Republican obsession with controlling "obscenity" on TV and other public media. [1] https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/9/new-rubio-bill-helps-shareholders-fight-back-against-woke-corporations https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/9/new-rub...
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      Read it again, it doesn't stop them, it puts them on record. Not comparable to silencing speech of citizens. Choose a better whataboutism in your defense of censorship, not just Marco lol.
      - AlexandrB 5y ago
        I'm not defending anything. I'm responding to your statement that Republicans don't want to censor speech. > I haven't seen any calls from any Republicans to censor any speech. They very clearly do! Even setting aside the Rubio bill, you did not respond to either the "you must be patriotic"[1][2] or the "obscenity"[3][4] type of censorship that Republicans love to pursue. [1] https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/25/tennessee-senate-republicans-national-anthem-college-funding-cut/6803920002/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/25/te... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/24/tennessee-gop-anthem-protest/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/24/tennessee-g... [3] https://reason.com/2012/08/28/yes-the-gop-platform-is-for-vigorously-e/ https://reason.com/2012/08/28/yes-the-gop-platform-is-for-vi... [4] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/exclusive-u-s-representatives-call-on-barr-to-prosecute-obscene-pornography/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/exclusive-u-s-represen...
        hunterb123 5y ago
        1. The big reveal in that article is "No we're not ready to do that yet". Legally yes it may be a freedom of speech issue because it's at a public university, but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship. 2. Sorry can't view due to paywall, couldn't find an archive 3. You can be arrested in many liberal towns for public indecency. I don't support evangelicals argument against pornography using obscenity but it's not exactly a great comparison against the censorship of political dissent. 4. Same point as above. Note that the main difference of these events are the severity and scale. It's many national level Democrats coordinating to censor political speech on a private platform by creating a fake "whistleblower" vs some kneeling at a basketball game or porn laws. I agree that those few Republicans are wrong, but their suggestions aren't the majority in the party and they won't get far. Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign.
  - enumjorge 5y ago
    > Their base is very adamant about the Bill of Rights. Bullshit. A lot of their base is adamant about quoting the bill of rights when it serves them and looking the other way when it doesn't. Highly doubt most of them can even list all the amendments of the bill of rights they claim to be so passionate about. There's amendments in there about due process, yet you'll see the right defend cops using excessive force on people they arrest even if it ends in death. That's effectively a death sentence without a trial. As far as speech, the right's embrace of "free speech" is recent and superficial. It wasn't so long ago that conservative groups in this country were trying to ban portrayals of gay people on mass media, with the same "think of the children" excuse that another comment on this thread was complaining about. That has only receded because they lost that culture war, but I'm sure they would gladly erase LGBT folks from popular culture if they could.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      Alright, find something recent. We're talking about current censorship. No amount of whataboutism will make what the Dems are currently doing ok. As a libertarian in the wing I know full well about the past of the evangelicals, doesn't make censorship okay does it?
unethical_ban 5y ago
I think HN needs a thread dedicated to exploring the word "censor". If you think it means "any deletion of content" then I support some forms of censorship. If you think it means "the prohibition of the possession of thought or the ability to transmit that thought via your own mechanisms", then I am against it.
- tediousdemise 5y ago
  When content gets deleted or hidden, it inhibits the ability to transmit that thought, so I fail to see your distinction. Censorship is censorship. "Good censorship" and "bad censorship" is a slippery slope. The only type of content that should be censored in a given jurisdiction is content that is against the law. What should be against the law is an entirely different discussion to be had amongst inhabitants of that sovereign jurisdiction. When multinational corporations impose censorship that doesn't align with the laws of a given jurisdiction, it is tantamount to imperialism.
  - piggybox 5y ago
    While you guys are talking about censorship, I just realize how many comments in the thread have been in effect partially "censored" on HN with lighter and lighter font color...
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    I don't think we should tell HN or Facebook they must host content they know to be false and contributory to the decline of the nation. You have to draw the line somewhere on when speech is defended, and when owners of sites or infrastructure should be legally and morally required to host content they don't support. My line is at the ISP/DNS level. Let people build their own sites to publish whatever they want, and regulate ISPs and registrars as quasi-public utilities with certain societal obligations. I don't think that obligation should extend to individual websites.

by jwond 5y ago

The difference from what I see is that Republicans are attacking Facebook for censoring too much, while Democrats are attacking Facebook for censoring too little.

mbg721 5y ago

Only because of the nature of the censored content; Republicans aren't inherently as anti-censorship as the libertarian wing would like to hope they are. Social media are the fourth-and-a-half estate, and they're flexing their muscles for the other party.

hunterb123 5y ago
I haven't seen any calls from any Republicans to censor any speech. Their base is very adamant about the Bill of Rights. Do you have any examples to back up your statement? Keep in mind we're talking about silencing political dissent, that's pretty fucking major, not a "oh both sides do it, that's life" thing.
- mbg721 5y ago
  I'm thinking more of the Satanism scares of the 80s. Republicans have never really had the mass-media on their side post-Watergate (except maybe briefly after 9/11), so they can't silence anyone in the "fortifying the election" sense.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  Marco Rubio just proposed a bill to stop corporations from being too "woke"[1]. There are also numerous instances of Republican politicians complaining or proposing bills about things like athletes kneeling during the anthem, burning of the flag, or other forms of expressions they deem "un-American". That's not even mentioning the Republican obsession with controlling "obscenity" on TV and other public media. [1] https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/9/new-rubio-bill-helps-shareholders-fight-back-against-woke-corporations https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/9/new-rub...
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    Read it again, it doesn't stop them, it puts them on record. Not comparable to silencing speech of citizens. Choose a better whataboutism in your defense of censorship, not just Marco lol.
    - AlexandrB 5y ago
      I'm not defending anything. I'm responding to your statement that Republicans don't want to censor speech. > I haven't seen any calls from any Republicans to censor any speech. They very clearly do! Even setting aside the Rubio bill, you did not respond to either the "you must be patriotic"[1][2] or the "obscenity"[3][4] type of censorship that Republicans love to pursue. [1] https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/25/tennessee-senate-republicans-national-anthem-college-funding-cut/6803920002/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/25/te... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/24/tennessee-gop-anthem-protest/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/24/tennessee-g... [3] https://reason.com/2012/08/28/yes-the-gop-platform-is-for-vigorously-e/ https://reason.com/2012/08/28/yes-the-gop-platform-is-for-vi... [4] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/exclusive-u-s-representatives-call-on-barr-to-prosecute-obscene-pornography/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/exclusive-u-s-represen...
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        1. The big reveal in that article is "No we're not ready to do that yet". Legally yes it may be a freedom of speech issue because it's at a public university, but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship. 2. Sorry can't view due to paywall, couldn't find an archive 3. You can be arrested in many liberal towns for public indecency. I don't support evangelicals argument against pornography using obscenity but it's not exactly a great comparison against the censorship of political dissent. 4. Same point as above. Note that the main difference of these events are the severity and scale. It's many national level Democrats coordinating to censor political speech on a private platform by creating a fake "whistleblower" vs some kneeling at a basketball game or porn laws. I agree that those few Republicans are wrong, but their suggestions aren't the majority in the party and they won't get far. Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign.
- enumjorge 5y ago
  > Their base is very adamant about the Bill of Rights. Bullshit. A lot of their base is adamant about quoting the bill of rights when it serves them and looking the other way when it doesn't. Highly doubt most of them can even list all the amendments of the bill of rights they claim to be so passionate about. There's amendments in there about due process, yet you'll see the right defend cops using excessive force on people they arrest even if it ends in death. That's effectively a death sentence without a trial. As far as speech, the right's embrace of "free speech" is recent and superficial. It wasn't so long ago that conservative groups in this country were trying to ban portrayals of gay people on mass media, with the same "think of the children" excuse that another comment on this thread was complaining about. That has only receded because they lost that culture war, but I'm sure they would gladly erase LGBT folks from popular culture if they could.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    Alright, find something recent. We're talking about current censorship. No amount of whataboutism will make what the Dems are currently doing ok. As a libertarian in the wing I know full well about the past of the evangelicals, doesn't make censorship okay does it?

unethical_ban 5y ago

I think HN needs a thread dedicated to exploring the word "censor". If you think it means "any deletion of content" then I support some forms of censorship. If you think it means "the prohibition of the possession of thought or the ability to transmit that thought via your own mechanisms", then I am against it.

tediousdemise 5y ago
When content gets deleted or hidden, it inhibits the ability to transmit that thought, so I fail to see your distinction. Censorship is censorship. "Good censorship" and "bad censorship" is a slippery slope. The only type of content that should be censored in a given jurisdiction is content that is against the law. What should be against the law is an entirely different discussion to be had amongst inhabitants of that sovereign jurisdiction. When multinational corporations impose censorship that doesn't align with the laws of a given jurisdiction, it is tantamount to imperialism.
- piggybox 5y ago
  While you guys are talking about censorship, I just realize how many comments in the thread have been in effect partially "censored" on HN with lighter and lighter font color...
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  I don't think we should tell HN or Facebook they must host content they know to be false and contributory to the decline of the nation. You have to draw the line somewhere on when speech is defended, and when owners of sites or infrastructure should be legally and morally required to host content they don't support. My line is at the ISP/DNS level. Let people build their own sites to publish whatever they want, and regulate ISPs and registrars as quasi-public utilities with certain societal obligations. I don't think that obligation should extend to individual websites.