5 ms·

One of the most depressing things in the 2022 is the amount of seemingly smart people from most developed democracies in the world who desperately want more cen

One of the most depressing things in the 2022 is the amount of seemingly smart people from most developed democracies in the world who desperately want more censorship.

serverholic 5y ago
I think it stems from a rise in marxist thinking. Marx was obsessed with socioeconomic class and, in his mind, we should restructure society to eliminate classes because classes are oppressive. In this philosophy anything is acceptable if it means eliminating or reducing some form of oppression. So censorship is totally valid under this philosophy. Today, people don't talk much about "class" but the same ideas have been adapted to race, gender, and other areas that could be viewed as oppressive.
- creata 5y ago
  > anything is acceptable if it means eliminating or reducing some form of oppression I don't know about Marx, but that sounds closer to a comic book villain than a real person. And skimming through some search results, it looks like he heavily supported freedom of the press.
  - serverholic 5y ago
    In the communist manifesto Marx advocates for the: > Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. The state controlling communications doesn't sound very free speech to me.
    - creata 5y ago
      Like I said, I don't know about Marx, and I don't know what he means by "the means of communication". But for one thing, it seems (from the paragraph above the line you quoted) that he views this as a necessary and temporary evil: > despotic inroads on the rights of property... unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. And for another, he's also said to have said (in "Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction"): > The real, radical cure for the censorship would be its abolition; for the institution itself is a bad one, and institutions are more powerful than people. That seems pretty unambiguously against censorship.
    - bradlys 5y ago
      One could argue that maybe it’s a means to get rid of the profit incentive that is inherent with means of communications that has always existed within a capitalistic society… Have you considered that?
LoveGracePeace 5y ago
Agreed, thank you.
hindsightbias 5y ago
It’s always Eternal September: “ In March 2003, the American country band the Dixie Chicks, now known as the Chicks, publicly criticized President George W. Bush and the imminent Allied invasion of Iraq… After the statement was reported by the British newspaper The Guardian, it led to backlash from American country listeners, who were mostly right-wing and supported the war. The Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by thousands of country radio stations, received death threats, and were criticized by other country musicians. The backlash damaged sales of the Dixie Chicks' music and concert tickets and lost them corporate sponsorship.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_controversy
- golergka 5y ago
  > blacklisted by thousands of country radio stations I don't think it's the same. DJ's make decisions what to put on air like editors; they express their personal musical and political views, and so does the radio station as a whole. They don't advertise to the listener as if they played all the possible music in the world, but Spotify does. It has curated playlists, of course, but all of it's messaging to the user has an implicit assumption that user will be able to find whatever she wants there, and it won't be expression of Spotify's musical or political views.
  - hindsightbias 5y ago
    “In a poll by an Atlanta radio station, 76 percent of listeners who participated responded they would return their Dixie Chicks CDs if they could.[15] Protesters in Bossier City, Louisiana, used a tractor to destroy Dixie Chicks CDs and other items.[13] The Kansas City station WDAF-AM placed trashcans outside its office for listeners to dispose of their CDs, and displayed hundreds of emails from listeners supporting the boycott.[13] The drinks manufacturer Lipton canceled its promotional contract with the Dixie Chicks.[4] Maguire's tour bus driver resigned in protest of their remarks.[11] Maines said: "It seems unfathomable that someone would not want to drive us because of our political views. But we're learning more and more that it's not that unfathomable to a large percentage of the population."[11]”
sauwan 5y ago
Well as someone who supports the JR show saying whatever the hell they want to say and thinks free speech is a pillar of democracy, I'm not sure I would call any of this censorship. Who's doing the censoring? Neil Young? Paying subscribers who don't want to pay to support a service they feels amplifies a voice they feel is dangerous? This is more nuanced than "free speech" vs "dangerous misinformation".

One of the most depressing things in the 2022 is the amount of seemingly smart people from most developed democracies in the world who desperately want more censorship.

serverholic 5y ago

I think it stems from a rise in marxist thinking. Marx was obsessed with socioeconomic class and, in his mind, we should restructure society to eliminate classes because classes are oppressive. In this philosophy anything is acceptable if it means eliminating or reducing some form of oppression. So censorship is totally valid under this philosophy. Today, people don't talk much about "class" but the same ideas have been adapted to race, gender, and other areas that could be viewed as oppressive.

creata 5y ago
> anything is acceptable if it means eliminating or reducing some form of oppression I don't know about Marx, but that sounds closer to a comic book villain than a real person. And skimming through some search results, it looks like he heavily supported freedom of the press.
- serverholic 5y ago
  In the communist manifesto Marx advocates for the: > Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. The state controlling communications doesn't sound very free speech to me.
  - creata 5y ago
    Like I said, I don't know about Marx, and I don't know what he means by "the means of communication". But for one thing, it seems (from the paragraph above the line you quoted) that he views this as a necessary and temporary evil: > despotic inroads on the rights of property... unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. And for another, he's also said to have said (in "Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction"): > The real, radical cure for the censorship would be its abolition; for the institution itself is a bad one, and institutions are more powerful than people. That seems pretty unambiguously against censorship.
  - bradlys 5y ago
    One could argue that maybe it’s a means to get rid of the profit incentive that is inherent with means of communications that has always existed within a capitalistic society… Have you considered that?

LoveGracePeace 5y ago

Agreed, thank you.

hindsightbias 5y ago

It’s always Eternal September: “ In March 2003, the American country band the Dixie Chicks, now known as the Chicks, publicly criticized President George W. Bush and the imminent Allied invasion of Iraq… After the statement was reported by the British newspaper The Guardian, it led to backlash from American country listeners, who were mostly right-wing and supported the war. The Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by thousands of country radio stations, received death threats, and were criticized by other country musicians. The backlash damaged sales of the Dixie Chicks' music and concert tickets and lost them corporate sponsorship.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_controversy

golergka 5y ago
> blacklisted by thousands of country radio stations I don't think it's the same. DJ's make decisions what to put on air like editors; they express their personal musical and political views, and so does the radio station as a whole. They don't advertise to the listener as if they played all the possible music in the world, but Spotify does. It has curated playlists, of course, but all of it's messaging to the user has an implicit assumption that user will be able to find whatever she wants there, and it won't be expression of Spotify's musical or political views.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  “In a poll by an Atlanta radio station, 76 percent of listeners who participated responded they would return their Dixie Chicks CDs if they could.[15] Protesters in Bossier City, Louisiana, used a tractor to destroy Dixie Chicks CDs and other items.[13] The Kansas City station WDAF-AM placed trashcans outside its office for listeners to dispose of their CDs, and displayed hundreds of emails from listeners supporting the boycott.[13] The drinks manufacturer Lipton canceled its promotional contract with the Dixie Chicks.[4] Maguire's tour bus driver resigned in protest of their remarks.[11] Maines said: "It seems unfathomable that someone would not want to drive us because of our political views. But we're learning more and more that it's not that unfathomable to a large percentage of the population."[11]”

sauwan 5y ago

Well as someone who supports the JR show saying whatever the hell they want to say and thinks free speech is a pillar of democracy, I'm not sure I would call any of this censorship. Who's doing the censoring? Neil Young? Paying subscribers who don't want to pay to support a service they feels amplifies a voice they feel is dangerous? This is more nuanced than "free speech" vs "dangerous misinformation".