5 ms·

that is an ideological position.

stale2002 5y ago
I don't think you understand what people mean when they say less ideological. For example, would you call it ideological that the government does not arrest people for criticizing it? Imagine if we compare 2 governments, 1 which arrests people for criticizing it, and another that doesn't. In the context of this comparison, the one that censors less people, most would call less ideological. By ideological, people usually are talking about enforced ideology. So if you censor more people, then that is enforcing your ideology more, and if you have less censorship then that is less enforcement of ideology.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  people call things less ideological when they agree with them more, that's all - if your views are unexamined then they look like a natural or intuitive position. The idea that freedom primarily exists as a lack of compulsion is libertarian or neoliberal ideology. Your total freedom from censorship is somebody else's freedom to harass and send death threats - obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere or twitter devolves into 8chan, and oftentimes people call for a nebulous "free speech" or "anti-censorship" instead of specifying what particular speech is being censored that they think is legitimate. Moderation is essential on the internet. If people think something is being censored and it shouldn't be, they should point to specific examples.
- educaysean 5y ago
  > principles of open and free discourses with less moderation That is an ideology > For example, would you call it ideological that the government does not arrest people for criticizing it? Um, yes
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- johnny22 5y ago
  no, they are just different ideologies, one in which you prefer more than the other.
jimmyjazz14 5y ago
In some sense but if a platform takes a neutral stance on the content within it becomes as "ideological" as a pinboard in a super market. So yes the platforms content may reflect the ideology of those who uses it most the platform itself as long as it does not interfere with what is posted to it would in my opinion less ideological.
AlchemistCamp 5y ago
That’s a really pedantic point to keep injecting throughout is thread. Yes, technically it’s an ideological choice to NOT gather up various books at the public library and burn them. But in practice, it’s not ideological at all compared to doing the opposite.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Yes, technically it’s an ideological choice to NOT gather up and burn various books at the public library. But in practice, it’s not ideological at all. No, in practice it's very ideological, but it falls into a the blind spot most people have for broad consensus ideology. People tend to recognize something as “ideological“ only when a large group strongly opposes the ideology in question. (The Musk case is different from the analogy you present, though, because of the ideologically loaded way rhetorical appeal to “the principles of open and free discourses with less moderation“ is used in regard to internet fora by a political faction that actually supports intensified censorship of lots of things, but also happens to want to promote lots of things that various large platforms have decided they don't want to be a megaphone for.)
  - AlchemistCamp 5y ago
    > No, in practice it's very ideological How so? How is it “very ideological” to NOT be burning the third book from the left on the first shelf in the library? Or the ninth one on the right. I don’t even know what’s in either and I spend roughly zero time thinking about my local library. I’m not even sure where the first shelf from the door is situated. How is my (ongoing) choice NOT to walk over there and start burning a non-empty set of books “very ideological”? I suspect if you were to enter the same library and light various books on fire, nobody hearing about your arrest would agree that you were no more ideological with respect to that library than I (or the billions of others who also did not chose to engage in that behavior).
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  OK, so the free speech versus censorship argument, let's go: Speech rules exist on a spectrum from total free speech where you can threaten to murder someone or continually harass them, to total control where everything you say must pass inspection (say, letters out from a classified military base). Any position on that spectrum has tradeoffs. If you ban Nazis you are being censorious but at the same time, providing space for the people that Nazis hate where they won't have their existence constantly challenged. If you ban fake news and one side of the political spectrum puts out more fake news than the other, that side will accuse you of political bias. Where you draw the line is not an objective decision, it's one based on what you value. That's an ideological decision. Brian Armstrong banning "politics at work" is because he is probably a libertarian rather than a progressive and would rather shut up the political people at work so he can focus on making money without having his actions criticised. Twitter allows politics at work because it was founded by liberals and they allow staff to criticise the direction of the company. 8chan refused to censor their platform for ideological reasons, twitter does censor their platform for ideological reasons. Does that clear it up for you?

stale2002 5y ago

I don't think you understand what people mean when they say less ideological. For example, would you call it ideological that the government does not arrest people for criticizing it? Imagine if we compare 2 governments, 1 which arrests people for criticizing it, and another that doesn't. In the context of this comparison, the one that censors less people, most would call less ideological. By ideological, people usually are talking about enforced ideology. So if you censor more people, then that is enforcing your ideology more, and if you have less censorship then that is less enforcement of ideology.

beaconstudios 5y ago
people call things less ideological when they agree with them more, that's all - if your views are unexamined then they look like a natural or intuitive position. The idea that freedom primarily exists as a lack of compulsion is libertarian or neoliberal ideology. Your total freedom from censorship is somebody else's freedom to harass and send death threats - obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere or twitter devolves into 8chan, and oftentimes people call for a nebulous "free speech" or "anti-censorship" instead of specifying what particular speech is being censored that they think is legitimate. Moderation is essential on the internet. If people think something is being censored and it shouldn't be, they should point to specific examples.
educaysean 5y ago
> principles of open and free discourses with less moderation That is an ideology > For example, would you call it ideological that the government does not arrest people for criticizing it? Um, yes
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
johnny22 5y ago
no, they are just different ideologies, one in which you prefer more than the other.

jimmyjazz14 5y ago

In some sense but if a platform takes a neutral stance on the content within it becomes as "ideological" as a pinboard in a super market. So yes the platforms content may reflect the ideology of those who uses it most the platform itself as long as it does not interfere with what is posted to it would in my opinion less ideological.

AlchemistCamp 5y ago

That’s a really pedantic point to keep injecting throughout is thread. Yes, technically it’s an ideological choice to NOT gather up various books at the public library and burn them. But in practice, it’s not ideological at all compared to doing the opposite.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Yes, technically it’s an ideological choice to NOT gather up and burn various books at the public library. But in practice, it’s not ideological at all. No, in practice it's very ideological, but it falls into a the blind spot most people have for broad consensus ideology. People tend to recognize something as “ideological“ only when a large group strongly opposes the ideology in question. (The Musk case is different from the analogy you present, though, because of the ideologically loaded way rhetorical appeal to “the principles of open and free discourses with less moderation“ is used in regard to internet fora by a political faction that actually supports intensified censorship of lots of things, but also happens to want to promote lots of things that various large platforms have decided they don't want to be a megaphone for.)
- AlchemistCamp 5y ago
  > No, in practice it's very ideological How so? How is it “very ideological” to NOT be burning the third book from the left on the first shelf in the library? Or the ninth one on the right. I don’t even know what’s in either and I spend roughly zero time thinking about my local library. I’m not even sure where the first shelf from the door is situated. How is my (ongoing) choice NOT to walk over there and start burning a non-empty set of books “very ideological”? I suspect if you were to enter the same library and light various books on fire, nobody hearing about your arrest would agree that you were no more ideological with respect to that library than I (or the billions of others who also did not chose to engage in that behavior).
beaconstudios 5y ago
OK, so the free speech versus censorship argument, let's go: Speech rules exist on a spectrum from total free speech where you can threaten to murder someone or continually harass them, to total control where everything you say must pass inspection (say, letters out from a classified military base). Any position on that spectrum has tradeoffs. If you ban Nazis you are being censorious but at the same time, providing space for the people that Nazis hate where they won't have their existence constantly challenged. If you ban fake news and one side of the political spectrum puts out more fake news than the other, that side will accuse you of political bias. Where you draw the line is not an objective decision, it's one based on what you value. That's an ideological decision. Brian Armstrong banning "politics at work" is because he is probably a libertarian rather than a progressive and would rather shut up the political people at work so he can focus on making money without having his actions criticised. Twitter allows politics at work because it was founded by liberals and they allow staff to criticise the direction of the company. 8chan refused to censor their platform for ideological reasons, twitter does censor their platform for ideological reasons. Does that clear it up for you?