5 ms·

Which emergency are you referring to? And what censorship methods are you referring to? For example, I think the media choosing not to cover a story immediatel

Which emergency are you referring to? And what censorship methods are you referring to? For example, I think the media choosing not to cover a story immediately when it is being peddled by an unreliable political agent doesn’t qualify as censorship. Even if it turns out to be true.

thrown_22 4y ago
>The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. >Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
- soco 4y ago
  Or maybe because the large public doesn't care reading about some things, thus the press will not write about it. That's capitalism at work and the freedom of the press. There's no law forcing us to read everything, luckily, and just because a few people consider something of interest doesn't automatically make it of interest.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    It takes a special type of hubris to read Orwell on censorship and say you know better.
zmgsabst 4y ago
COVID was the example I had I mind, where they censored medical professionals, politicians, and journalists who said lockdowns were a bad idea, questioned the data supporting mRNA (eg, Robert Malone), etc. But since you mentioned not covering a story — we also have the Hunter Biden laptop, which wasn’t merely not covered, but actively censored on social media during an election. (Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg admitted as much.) The whole point of freedom of speech is the censors are notoriously bad at deciding what is “misinformation”, as they were in that case… where they shut down a political story which hurt their preferred candidate but was nonetheless true.
- jliptzin 4y ago
  Social media != the government
  - yourusername 4y ago
    Social media censors partly because of pressure from governments that make it clear that regulation will be coming if they don't do it "voluntarily".
    - jliptzin 4y ago
      Examples of such pressure from the government? Do you mean when Trump threatened to remove section 230 protection from social media companies because he didn't like "the way he was treated" on their sites? https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916096008/justice-department-proposes-weakening-social-medias-legal-shield https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916096008/justice-department-...
      - clarkmoody 4y ago
        FB censored the Hunter laptop story during the election at the behest of the FBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ
        4y ago

thrown_22 4y ago

>The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. >Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

soco 4y ago
Or maybe because the large public doesn't care reading about some things, thus the press will not write about it. That's capitalism at work and the freedom of the press. There's no law forcing us to read everything, luckily, and just because a few people consider something of interest doesn't automatically make it of interest.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  It takes a special type of hubris to read Orwell on censorship and say you know better.

zmgsabst 4y ago

COVID was the example I had I mind, where they censored medical professionals, politicians, and journalists who said lockdowns were a bad idea, questioned the data supporting mRNA (eg, Robert Malone), etc. But since you mentioned not covering a story — we also have the Hunter Biden laptop, which wasn’t merely not covered, but actively censored on social media during an election. (Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg admitted as much.) The whole point of freedom of speech is the censors are notoriously bad at deciding what is “misinformation”, as they were in that case… where they shut down a political story which hurt their preferred candidate but was nonetheless true.

jliptzin 4y ago
Social media != the government
- yourusername 4y ago
  Social media censors partly because of pressure from governments that make it clear that regulation will be coming if they don't do it "voluntarily".
  - jliptzin 4y ago
    Examples of such pressure from the government? Do you mean when Trump threatened to remove section 230 protection from social media companies because he didn't like "the way he was treated" on their sites? https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916096008/justice-department-proposes-weakening-social-medias-legal-shield https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916096008/justice-department-...
    - clarkmoody 4y ago
      FB censored the Hunter laptop story during the election at the behest of the FBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ
      - 4y ago