8 ms·

What's your solution then?

chroem- 5y ago
Nobody is "saving democracy" by denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. In fact, it does quite the opposite by destabilizing the political discourse. The "solution" is to stop trying to control people.
- philjohn 5y ago
  How is content moderation "denying people the right to participate in the democratic process"?
  - chroem- 5y ago
    Systemic lopsided moderation (i.e. censorship) of one political viewpoint is absolutely denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. Just because we disagree with their viewpoint does not make censorship justified, nor does it take away from the fact that it is currently happening.
    - krapp 5y ago
      >Systemic lopsided moderation (i.e. censorship) of one political viewpoint is absolutely denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. I still see plenty of content from various political viewpoints, far left to far right, on every forum and social media platform I visit. This "systemic lopsided moderation of one political viewpoint" you're referring to doesn't really exist apart from right-wing propaganda.
      - lostmsu 5y ago
        You are quite naive or selectively blind. Someone just posted this in another comment thread: https://twitter.com/GaiaRiot10/status/1468787960216797190 https://twitter.com/GaiaRiot10/status/1468787960216797190
        krapp 5y ago
        And yet oddly, the entire Twitter thread that agrees with Gaea Opines, and presumably their politics, hasn't been banned. Gaea Opines, themselves, hasn't been banned. Other Instagram posts and comments more extreme than that one haven't been banned. Other Twitter comments more extreme than that one haven't been banned. One removed comment does not an all-encompassing, democracy threatening conspiracy against a specific political side make.
        lostmsu 5y ago
        Then you theory is exceptionally hard to disprove, as someone would have to come up with a huge number of individual examples to have "statistical significance". There are also a few websites, whose entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger. It was discussed here previously. thedonald.win is a political example of such censorship. I think The Pirate Bay links are banned in Facebook itself.
        krapp 5y ago
        >Then you theory is exceptionally hard to disprove, as someone would have to come up with a huge number of individual examples to have "statistical significance". It isn't my theory. The right claims the entirety of social media has been engaged in an orchestrated conspiracy to purge non-leftist speech from their platforms in favor of pushing a radical socialist agenda for years, and that this is so widespread that it threatens democracy itself. Yes, you would need to come up with a statistically significant number of examples to prove that claim. But if it's true, it should actually be easy to prove, if not impossible to deny. Anecdotally, I haven't seen any sign of a decrease in right-wing speech on social media. At all. If anything, it's spread to places where it didn't even really exist before, like Youtube comments and this very forum, and it's thriving on the very platforms it's supposed to be banned from. And I can find accounts of leftist, Black and LGBT accounts being banned, algorithmically suppressed or arbitrarily demonetized, which runs counter to the narrative. I stand by my comment. The vast left-wing media conspiracy isn't a thing. It's propaganda. It's lifestyle branding. >There are also a few websites, whose entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger. It was discussed here previously. thedonald.win is a political example of such censorship. I think The Pirate Bay links are banned in Facebook itself. And I'd bet dollars to donuts something other than mere political speech was involved in each case. I can think of reasons why Facebook wouldn't want links to pirated software on its platform other than political bias, for instance.
      - 7189126744 5y ago
        “This "systemic lopsided moderation of one political viewpoint" you're referring to doesn't really exist apart from right-wing propaganda.” if what youre saying were true, then uncensored forums would look like twitter. but obviously they look like the exact opposite. uncensored forums are full of right wing shit because it’s not allowed on twitter. obviously
    - philjohn 5y ago
      Can you plese define what that political viewpoint is you're talking about? Is it saying that the government should be smaller and not involved in everyday life, or is it doing things like claiming an election was stolen, which has led to real world harm (poll workers receiving death threats), or calling for violence?
      - chroem- 5y ago
        These are the same social media companies that allowed, nay promoted, a Russia truther narrative that Vladmir Putin personally stole the 2016 election to install his sleeper agent in the US presidency. The same truther narrative whose architects have since been arrested for propagating it.
        philjohn 5y ago
        You didn't answer the question ... what are some examples of posts, or viewpoints that are, according to you, verboten? And didn't the GOP helmed investigation find that there was a concerted disinformation campaign waged by Russia, as well as numerous links between people in the Trump campaign and Russian operatives? Edit: and there are plenty of people on one side of the spectrum claiming that Biden is "in bed with China", which haven't been removed.
        chroem- 5y ago
        You're attempting to change the subject and I'm not going to take the bait. Mass censorship is far bigger than any one political issue. As per your second paragraph, no, that is false. They made a small ad buy to sow bipartisan political division. Please stop promoting misinformation.
        7189126744 5y ago
        im just commenting to say youre right and the guy advocating censorship is wrong and it’s very disturbing to see you downvoted
        5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
F6F6FA 5y ago
To what? People discussing and voting for their favorite candidate? Before it got censored as fake news, parts of social media were pretty damn correct on the pandemic and its origins. All of regular media followed the narrative, some afraid of the truth, because Trump may have ran with it. > How can you have election integrity if you don't have integrity of facts? This is about integrity/virtue of opinion. Conflate facts with opinions or political views and you lose right to talk facts. People voting in an authoritarian do not believe they are voting in an authoritarian, but an opposing voice to the evil socialist. It is poignant to defend democracy and at the same time complain of the rise of authoritarianism brought about by democracy. In so many ways, you are then saying people are voting on the wrong people, because they do not read your newspapers, but their Facebook timelines.
- philjohn 5y ago
  We still don't know the origin of the pandemic - are you trying to claim otherwise?
  - F6F6FA 5y ago
    > We still don't know > are you trying to Level 0 thinking, you do not even know the value of your cards. Such sophistry could only work on similar-leveled people. So if I engage, I'd be bluffing, and this is not a good idea to do with players who are basically no better or worse than random search. Find all facts and circumstantial evidence for and against lab-leak and zoonosis. Then form your own opinion. That's my claim, and only that. That may even be an opinion worth engaging with, for as long as the "we still" in your world-view includes a couple of thousand Chinese internet trolls, and discredited conflicted scientists who despite this still seem to make it to the Lancet and NYT.

Nobody is "saving democracy" by denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. In fact, it does quite the opposite by destabilizing the political discourse. The "solution" is to stop trying to control people.

philjohn 5y ago
How is content moderation "denying people the right to participate in the democratic process"?
- chroem- 5y ago
  Systemic lopsided moderation (i.e. censorship) of one political viewpoint is absolutely denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. Just because we disagree with their viewpoint does not make censorship justified, nor does it take away from the fact that it is currently happening.
  - krapp 5y ago
    >Systemic lopsided moderation (i.e. censorship) of one political viewpoint is absolutely denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. I still see plenty of content from various political viewpoints, far left to far right, on every forum and social media platform I visit. This "systemic lopsided moderation of one political viewpoint" you're referring to doesn't really exist apart from right-wing propaganda.
    - lostmsu 5y ago
      You are quite naive or selectively blind. Someone just posted this in another comment thread: https://twitter.com/GaiaRiot10/status/1468787960216797190 https://twitter.com/GaiaRiot10/status/1468787960216797190
      - krapp 5y ago
        And yet oddly, the entire Twitter thread that agrees with Gaea Opines, and presumably their politics, hasn't been banned. Gaea Opines, themselves, hasn't been banned. Other Instagram posts and comments more extreme than that one haven't been banned. Other Twitter comments more extreme than that one haven't been banned. One removed comment does not an all-encompassing, democracy threatening conspiracy against a specific political side make.
        lostmsu 5y ago
        Then you theory is exceptionally hard to disprove, as someone would have to come up with a huge number of individual examples to have "statistical significance". There are also a few websites, whose entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger. It was discussed here previously. thedonald.win is a political example of such censorship. I think The Pirate Bay links are banned in Facebook itself.
        krapp 5y ago
        >Then you theory is exceptionally hard to disprove, as someone would have to come up with a huge number of individual examples to have "statistical significance". It isn't my theory. The right claims the entirety of social media has been engaged in an orchestrated conspiracy to purge non-leftist speech from their platforms in favor of pushing a radical socialist agenda for years, and that this is so widespread that it threatens democracy itself. Yes, you would need to come up with a statistically significant number of examples to prove that claim. But if it's true, it should actually be easy to prove, if not impossible to deny. Anecdotally, I haven't seen any sign of a decrease in right-wing speech on social media. At all. If anything, it's spread to places where it didn't even really exist before, like Youtube comments and this very forum, and it's thriving on the very platforms it's supposed to be banned from. And I can find accounts of leftist, Black and LGBT accounts being banned, algorithmically suppressed or arbitrarily demonetized, which runs counter to the narrative. I stand by my comment. The vast left-wing media conspiracy isn't a thing. It's propaganda. It's lifestyle branding. >There are also a few websites, whose entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger. It was discussed here previously. thedonald.win is a political example of such censorship. I think The Pirate Bay links are banned in Facebook itself. And I'd bet dollars to donuts something other than mere political speech was involved in each case. I can think of reasons why Facebook wouldn't want links to pirated software on its platform other than political bias, for instance.
    - 7189126744 5y ago
      “This "systemic lopsided moderation of one political viewpoint" you're referring to doesn't really exist apart from right-wing propaganda.” if what youre saying were true, then uncensored forums would look like twitter. but obviously they look like the exact opposite. uncensored forums are full of right wing shit because it’s not allowed on twitter. obviously
  - philjohn 5y ago
    Can you plese define what that political viewpoint is you're talking about? Is it saying that the government should be smaller and not involved in everyday life, or is it doing things like claiming an election was stolen, which has led to real world harm (poll workers receiving death threats), or calling for violence?
    - chroem- 5y ago
      These are the same social media companies that allowed, nay promoted, a Russia truther narrative that Vladmir Putin personally stole the 2016 election to install his sleeper agent in the US presidency. The same truther narrative whose architects have since been arrested for propagating it.
      - philjohn 5y ago
        You didn't answer the question ... what are some examples of posts, or viewpoints that are, according to you, verboten? And didn't the GOP helmed investigation find that there was a concerted disinformation campaign waged by Russia, as well as numerous links between people in the Trump campaign and Russian operatives? Edit: and there are plenty of people on one side of the spectrum claiming that Biden is "in bed with China", which haven't been removed.
        chroem- 5y ago
        You're attempting to change the subject and I'm not going to take the bait. Mass censorship is far bigger than any one political issue. As per your second paragraph, no, that is false. They made a small ad buy to sow bipartisan political division. Please stop promoting misinformation.
        7189126744 5y ago
        im just commenting to say youre right and the guy advocating censorship is wrong and it’s very disturbing to see you downvoted
        5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

F6F6FA 5y ago

To what? People discussing and voting for their favorite candidate? Before it got censored as fake news, parts of social media were pretty damn correct on the pandemic and its origins. All of regular media followed the narrative, some afraid of the truth, because Trump may have ran with it. > How can you have election integrity if you don't have integrity of facts? This is about integrity/virtue of opinion. Conflate facts with opinions or political views and you lose right to talk facts. People voting in an authoritarian do not believe they are voting in an authoritarian, but an opposing voice to the evil socialist. It is poignant to defend democracy and at the same time complain of the rise of authoritarianism brought about by democracy. In so many ways, you are then saying people are voting on the wrong people, because they do not read your newspapers, but their Facebook timelines.

philjohn 5y ago
We still don't know the origin of the pandemic - are you trying to claim otherwise?
- F6F6FA 5y ago
  > We still don't know > are you trying to Level 0 thinking, you do not even know the value of your cards. Such sophistry could only work on similar-leveled people. So if I engage, I'd be bluffing, and this is not a good idea to do with players who are basically no better or worse than random search. Find all facts and circumstantial evidence for and against lab-leak and zoonosis. Then form your own opinion. That's my claim, and only that. That may even be an opinion worth engaging with, for as long as the "we still" in your world-view includes a couple of thousand Chinese internet trolls, and discredited conflicted scientists who despite this still seem to make it to the Lancet and NYT.