4 ms·

im trying to understand what is being argued here. the person i responded to said it was a fact that "a chorus of coastal media types" are "asking for people t

by toofy 4y ago

im trying to understand what is being argued here. the person i responded to said it was a fact that "a chorus of coastal media types" are "asking for people they disagree with to be prevented from speaking in any public forum" the comment said this was a fact. and i still don't think thats a fact. now in this comment you say they're sending "calls to censor misinformation in media"--then sure. are you implying that journalists should be forced to report misinformation? and if they choose _not_ to report misinformation, they're censoring?

cxr 4y ago
From the last comment by the other person, it sounds like they're not going to answer. I'll answer for them (at my peril): > "calls to censor misinformation in media"[...] are you implying that journalists should be forced to report misinformation? No, they weren't saying that. > and if they choose _not_ to report misinformation, they're censoring? Also no.
- toofy 4y ago
  when considering the context from above, what do you think they were implying?
  - cxr 4y ago
    Nothing. Looking for subtext is an error on your part. The words they wrote were what they meant.
    - toofy 4y ago
      i wasn't asking for subtext, i was asking so it would be clear and _not_ vagueness. i asked specifically so we could remove subtext.
      - cxr 4y ago
        You asked explicitly what the other person was implying. If you ask that and then say that you weren't asking about any subtext, then one of us has some misunderstanding about the meaning of these words—and that person is not me. (This comment by me, for example, is definitely imbued with subtext.) Separately, put some effort into your attempts to have a discussion, please. I.e., beyond the bare minimum that it takes to type one or two sentences and press "reply" without giving it much more thought.
        toofy 4y ago
        i asked: > what do you think they were implying? …because in the previous comment you felt confident enough to answer for them. you said: > No, they weren't saying that. is asking what you think they meant unreasonable?
        cxr 4y ago
        Yes. The entire question is predicated on there being a subtext. I answered that: assume the words they wrote were what they meant. Believing that "[what] they meant" was something besides that or that there was something else that "they were implying" is to believe that there was a subtext by definition.
zmgsabst 4y ago
“What calls for censorship?” “Oh, those calls I already knew about, but pretended not to?” This is why I think you’re being disingenuous. Your comment about misinformation ignores that what they call “misinformation” is merely information they don’t like — eg, when they censored the Hunter Biden story during an election, while calling for Republicans and news outlets (eg, NY Post) who told the truth to be deplatformed. Your vapid replies pretending not to recognize that as censorship are as in poor faith as saying that North Korea can’t be an oppressive autocracy because “democratic republic” is in the name.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  We should be very skeptical of claims of "censorship" and "deplatforming" from a corporation that literally has its own press and can manufacture its own platform. Twitter chose to block the Post's story as factually incorrect because they were skeptical of it. That's their choice, much as the Post can choose not to trust a source. Twitter were wrong, but media outlets are sometimes wrong (for example, https://nypost.com/tag/correction/ https://nypost.com/tag/correction/). The Post is right to criticize Twitter's error, but any claims that Twitter lacked the right to make that call is, well, chipping at the rights the Post itself enjoys of control over its own pages. The Post can't force Twitter to run their stories any more than anyone should have the right to force the Post itself to quash the laptop story; both editorial authorities stem from the same freedom of the press.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Yes — that’s correct: Twitter censored a politically hot story they didn’t like during an election, silencing discussion of the Bidens’ illicit foreign dealings not only from the NY Post, but among all their users. That’s my point: censorship invariably is these “mistakes” of censoring truth you dislike rather than any noble purpose. Indeed, the whole pretense of noble purpose is precisely so you can make these ignoble “mistakes” with a clear conscience — you were trying to protect the community! …why is everyone complaining the outcome was censoring your political rivals during an election? You ignored me in the other thread: People have been making these same arguments in favor of censorship for millennia; can you give a historic example (pre-1900) where people censoring were on the right side of history?

by toofy 4y ago

cxr 4y ago

From the last comment by the other person, it sounds like they're not going to answer. I'll answer for them (at my peril): > "calls to censor misinformation in media"[...] are you implying that journalists should be forced to report misinformation? No, they weren't saying that. > and if they choose _not_ to report misinformation, they're censoring? Also no.

toofy 4y ago
when considering the context from above, what do you think they were implying?
- cxr 4y ago
  Nothing. Looking for subtext is an error on your part. The words they wrote were what they meant.
  - toofy 4y ago
    i wasn't asking for subtext, i was asking so it would be clear and _not_ vagueness. i asked specifically so we could remove subtext.
    - cxr 4y ago
      You asked explicitly what the other person was implying. If you ask that and then say that you weren't asking about any subtext, then one of us has some misunderstanding about the meaning of these words—and that person is not me. (This comment by me, for example, is definitely imbued with subtext.) Separately, put some effort into your attempts to have a discussion, please. I.e., beyond the bare minimum that it takes to type one or two sentences and press "reply" without giving it much more thought.
      - toofy 4y ago
        i asked: > what do you think they were implying? …because in the previous comment you felt confident enough to answer for them. you said: > No, they weren't saying that. is asking what you think they meant unreasonable?
        cxr 4y ago
        Yes. The entire question is predicated on there being a subtext. I answered that: assume the words they wrote were what they meant. Believing that "[what] they meant" was something besides that or that there was something else that "they were implying" is to believe that there was a subtext by definition.

zmgsabst 4y ago

“What calls for censorship?” “Oh, those calls I already knew about, but pretended not to?” This is why I think you’re being disingenuous. Your comment about misinformation ignores that what they call “misinformation” is merely information they don’t like — eg, when they censored the Hunter Biden story during an election, while calling for Republicans and news outlets (eg, NY Post) who told the truth to be deplatformed. Your vapid replies pretending not to recognize that as censorship are as in poor faith as saying that North Korea can’t be an oppressive autocracy because “democratic republic” is in the name.

shadowgovt 4y ago
We should be very skeptical of claims of "censorship" and "deplatforming" from a corporation that literally has its own press and can manufacture its own platform. Twitter chose to block the Post's story as factually incorrect because they were skeptical of it. That's their choice, much as the Post can choose not to trust a source. Twitter were wrong, but media outlets are sometimes wrong (for example, https://nypost.com/tag/correction/ https://nypost.com/tag/correction/). The Post is right to criticize Twitter's error, but any claims that Twitter lacked the right to make that call is, well, chipping at the rights the Post itself enjoys of control over its own pages. The Post can't force Twitter to run their stories any more than anyone should have the right to force the Post itself to quash the laptop story; both editorial authorities stem from the same freedom of the press.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Yes — that’s correct: Twitter censored a politically hot story they didn’t like during an election, silencing discussion of the Bidens’ illicit foreign dealings not only from the NY Post, but among all their users. That’s my point: censorship invariably is these “mistakes” of censoring truth you dislike rather than any noble purpose. Indeed, the whole pretense of noble purpose is precisely so you can make these ignoble “mistakes” with a clear conscience — you were trying to protect the community! …why is everyone complaining the outcome was censoring your political rivals during an election? You ignored me in the other thread: People have been making these same arguments in favor of censorship for millennia; can you give a historic example (pre-1900) where people censoring were on the right side of history?