10 ms·
Name one time in history the people on the side of censorship been in the right. If someone says something you disagree with then you debate it to convince peop
by choward 5y ago
Name one time in history the people on the side of censorship been in the right. If someone says something you disagree with then you debate it to convince people that you're right. You don't censor them. The only censorship that should happen is when something illegal is said. If you don't want someone saying something, get a law passed. I'd love to hear counterexamples.
And for those of you who think it's okay because "free market" and "private corporation", you're naive to think the government isn't heavily influencing social media censorship.
- nonethewiser 5y agoWe should expect youtube to value free speech regardless of whether or not they're legally obligated.
- chrischen 5y agoThey value their bottom line, and censorship is being done because they think it will help their bottom line, not because of some belief in being right. They're just trying to avoid controversy because it's bad for business.
- worried4future 5y agoYou are correct and I believe that it therefore falls on government to effectively manage that situation. Youtube is basically a monopoly and without trying to debate the ethics or correctness of how they got there, the message should be that they can choose to uphold certain principles like free speech or they can choose to be broken up.
- ninkendo 5y agoNah. I prefer well-moderated platforms (the one I’m currently typing into is a great example.) I’m ok with bars throwing out rude patrons, and I’m ok with YouTube banning nutjobs. Nutjobs can pay for their own video hosting.
- josephcsible 5y ago> Nutjobs can pay for their own video hosting. Until the hosting providers throw them out too, like AWS does.
- smm11 5y agoAlex Jones? I think maybe censoring Hitler would have been a good idea, too, but what do I know.
- COGlory 5y agoAlex Jones has been right about a number of things. Of course, he's frequently wrong, too, but censorship isn't aware of the differences.
- choward 5y agoThe Ministry of Truth knows the differences though.
- choward 5y agoAny specific examples? He had legal consequences recently for something he did recently. That should be enough. If not, make a new law.
- DaltonCoffee 5y agoCensoring/deplatforming/deleting Alex Jones was their first step towards banning vaccine documentaries, Fox news, the folk devil du jour, etc. Censoring Hitler looks like a great idea in hindsight but what babys would have gone out with that bathwater?
- khazhoux 5y agoNearly 20 million babies (most in adult form) died under Hitler, so yeah... censoring him would almost certainly have been better.
- DaltonCoffee 5y agoI stated that the (likely beneficial) censoring of Hitler would have also resulted in the censoring of other people (possibly not beneficial).
- 5y ago
- B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago> Name one time in history the people on the side of censorship been in the right. "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."
- cmh89 5y ago>Name one time in history the people on the side of censorship been in the right. Germany's current censorship of Nazi imagery and holocaust denial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a#:~:text=The%20German%20Strafgesetzbuch%20(StGB;%20English,is%20no%20official%20exhaustive%20list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a#:~.... The US (and most countries) ban on child pornography's is also an extremely valuable and effective form of censorship.
- daenz 5y agoBoth of those things are illegal and therefore fall under the exemption that the parent post explained.
- warning26 5y ago> The only censorship that should happen is when something illegal is said I enjoy this tautological directive. By OP's logic, China's censorship is totally fine because it's illegal to criticize the government there.
- daenz 5y agoI agree, but I also I don't think that's the point OP was trying to make. My reading was that the censorship that they are taking immediate issue with is the censorship that isn't a direct result of a law. Whether a certain thing should be legally censored or not is a separate (but related) issue.
- cmh89 5y agoBut its not like CP wasn't censored before it was illegal. The reason CP was sold through the mail in the first place is that reputable and moral private businesses wouldn't sell it in brick and mortar shops, even after porn as a whole became mainstream enough to sell in a storefront.
- worried4future 5y ago
- ISL 5y agoMaking it illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre has its merits.
- throwawaysea 5y agoBy the way, the supreme court case where this phrase around shouting fire in a theater comes from was overturned over 40 years ago. From https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... > Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
- jfengel 5y agoIt's illegal to say "I will shoot you if you don't leave this theater." The quote may be wrong, but the concept remains: there are legal limitations on speech. They exist and are more or less universally supported. The question is what those limits are, but few people believe that there shouldn't be any.
- yucky 5y agoIt's not illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater though.
- fullshark 5y agoWe ordinarily use libel laws and the fear of a libel lawsuit to censor people all the time. I don't know if that's what you meant by "illegal" but it's our mechanism to ensure accuracy in the media.
- verall 5y ago> The only censorship that should happen is when something illegal is said. If I own a public pool, and a minority of my patrons decide to ridicule another minority of my patrons, should I be able to have rules against making fun of people? I mean, the first group isn't doing anything illegal. I guess they have a _right_ to be nasty, at my pool, just because I normally let in anyone who will pay $5?
- TheOtherHobbes 5y agoEven more naive if you think corporations and media owners aren't influencing governments, and aren't carpet bombing social media platforms with views and comments to try to suppress views that don't benefit them. Overt de-platforming is just the most obvious kind of censorship. Inexplicably, those who label themselves free speech advocates rarely seem genuinely concerned about the more covert kinds of influencing.
- chasd00 5y ago“Influencing” is the right word. YouTube corporate is probably the most powerful influencer there ever was. After the lab leak ban fiasco you would think they would quietly abandon this. But no, it’s all laid completely bare now. YouTube has a political agenda to push and they’re pushing it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ehsankia 5y agoYou're mistaking what Youtube is. Not being on Youtube isn't censorship, it's the other way around. Being on Youtube is being given a pedestal. you also got your lesson about censorship backwards, tell me one time in history when giving a megaphone to the loudest voice to spread their bullshit was a good idea. If Hilter hadn't been given a pedestal to spread his hateful message, the world would've been a better place. No one is entitled to be given a "platform" to spread their message. Youtube is a megaphone and they have all the rights to control which messages they don't want to amplify. It also very much reasonable to refuse to amplify messages that literally lead to real human beings dying. People who listen to Fox News have a 3x higher chance of dying of COVID than people who don't [0]. Killing your own users is the stupidest thing a business can do. [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828...
- warning26 5y ago> No one is entitled to be given a "platform" to spread their message. Youtube is a megaphone and they have all the rights to control which messages they want to amplify. Exactly, and this is what so many discussions of social media "censorship" miss. You have a right to say whatever you want. You don't have a right to have whatever you say automatically broadcast (and algorithmically surfaced to) millions of users. It would be like arguing that a newspaper should be required to publish anything anyone wrote.
- AdrianB1 5y agoWhen YouTube is on the same level with utility companies, then your argument does not hold. The size and specificity of YouTube service makes it an utility company, not a small country club that can select the customers as they want.
- nickthegreek 5y agoISPs aren’t even classified as public utilities. Maybe that’s a better place to start.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rzwitserloot 5y agoName one time in history your question is relevant. Until recently, bans were either by law and effectively total, or the 'speech' in question is quite limited in reach. When was there ever a social network-like thing in the past? But, I'll play your game. "Any newspaper in history". They all have or had a policy that they'd only post those letters sent in that were interesting, and would never post outright lies or inflammatory stuff just to get a kick out of things, unless they posted it with a boatload of editorializing around it. Or they WOULD post such things, but only because they were actively attempting to espouse that logic (fox news is certainly not the first channel that is fairly nakedly attempting to steer the conversation towards an entire party's worth of political viewpoints - that's been something newspapers have been doing for a long time, read some editorials of 1900s newspapers for a few laughs). You really think a newspaper that adopted a system where they'd post every letter verbatim regardless of content (as long as the content wasn't illegal on its own) or some sort of lottery system where they'd post randomly selected content, regardless of what it was? - that such a newspaper would have flourished, or that a society that likes that kind of newspaper would have? That's.. crazy talk. I can hear you say; Nah, that does not apply - not what I'm talking about. Okay. So, then - what? Name me _anything_ in history that is neither directly governmental or otherwise 'total' (a ban or other pressure to eliminate a certain kind of discourse means virtually nobody hears it, no matter what the one wanting to say it tries to do about it - usually an outright government-backed ban on something - which is not relevant here. There are plenty of other platforms out there).
- duskwuff 5y ago> Name one time in history the people on the side of censorship been in the right. Using what definition of "censorship"? If you're going to define any removal action by a private company as "censorship", consider the following types of content which YouTube routinely "censors": * Scam / spam content, like fake "double your cryptocurrency" streams * A wide range of content "harmful to children", like violent cartoons featuring popular characters, or videos urging children to perform dangerous acts * Videos containing nudity, hate speech, or excessive vulgar language * Videos promoting or praising criminal / terrorist groups
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- version_five 5y agoIts interesting (and terrifying) to see the neo-authoritarians justifying their positions for why censorship is OK. We're not heading to a good place.
- rvz 5y agoWhere we are heading, It will only get worse for the users on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc since anyone can get their accounts banned or suspended under the disguise for so-called ‘misinformation’ in their ‘guidelines’ even with users abusing the report button or a bot doing it. The suspension will be vague, near-instant and can be for any random reason. Good luck if you encounter a human to recover your account, unless you are a fortunate famous user or know someone who works at those companies. If not, just scream loud enough everywhere about it to cause outrage. Since only when it happens to them or to someone they know, they will do that and complain here about it, proving my whole point.
- nickthegreek 5y agoCensoring cigarette companies from using cartoon mascots to hock their known poison.
- aklemm 5y agoGermans handling of Nazi speech post-WWII.