5 ms·

“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

“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?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > can you give a historic example (pre-1900) where people censoring were on the right side of history? I don't know why you're constraining the time frame to pre-1900, but sure. From 1899 prior, almost every time a newspaper decided not to report something that they believed was false. Because by and large, newspapers do a pretty good job of separating the wheat from the chaff and reporting stories that at least seem to be true. What they don't do is report, without editorial insight, everything they could. They don't publish every letter to the editor, they don't run every story a reporter chases, and they never have. Filtering is part of their job. We remember the errors in filtering (especially if it's a good newspaper because they will report a retraction or correction) but there isn't too terribly much evidence in black and white of the dozens of decisions editors make to not amplify the noise. Obviously, since it didn't end up in a paper. There are people in the world who believe the Earth is flat. Nobody is under any obligation to spread that belief. I'm not saying Twitter should start censoring discussion of flat Earth, but it's up to them if they choose to. I guess the result is it wouldn't be a very welcoming channel for discussion of flat Earth topics. Nothing really lost there, I guess someone will have to set up a forum for it.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      But Twitter isn’t a newspaper: they’re an aggregation and communication service who chose to censor what other people were allowed to communicate in a way that benefitted them politically — and who is not in the process of expressing regular editorial control of publication. (Unless you’re claiming that it’s not user content…?) I also wouldn’t be holding up 1880-1900 journalism as an example of accuracy — you’re describing the period of salacious Jack the Ripper stories. Is that your best example of censorship working out positively — that tabloid era in journalism? I’m asking you where this has led to positive things; not contesting the rights of Twitter. But actually, I think there is something lost when Twitter no longer hosts flat Earth debates: the ability to convincingly explain why the Earth isn’t flat requires practice and refinement; and to know that the Earth isn’t flat requires we allow the idea to be challenged. You don’t seem able to think of a case that censors showed a clear benefit to society — but there’s several in the past few years where they haven’t: - Hunter Biden story may as well have been election interference - somehow, deaths are spiking beyond COVID — quite possibly as a result of COVID policies; we never had a genuine debate over what to do - similarly, multiple countries have pulled COVID vaccines for kids due to the risk of myocarditis… which has been known all along, but was censored from discussion I was hoping to see a convincing historic example, cut free from modern politics so I could assess it fairly — but there don’t seem to be any examples where censorship generated positives to offset the huge negatives I see happening at present.
toofy 4y ago
nonsense. if an organization chooses not to use its voice to spread misinformation, thats not censorship. is it censorship when my weather app _chooses_ not to say it’s snowing when it’s 103 out? that’s absurd. one of the links posted above said some americans believe that all sides should be reported equally. again that’s stupid. not just silly, it’s stupid. “all” sides? these muppets believe “all” sides deserve equal weight, always? People used to, after midnight bury a toads leg under an oak tree on the third full moon believing it would cure cancer. are people now arguing that medical journals should be required to include this next to all cancer research? that it should be covered equally with the same weight? that’s stupid. is it censorship if a journal doesn’t include woo crazy nonsense? no, it’s an editorial choice. you can attack me and call my posts vapid all you like, but i was asking for more clarification from vague posts making extraordinary vague claims about some vague “chorus of coastal media types”

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?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > can you give a historic example (pre-1900) where people censoring were on the right side of history? I don't know why you're constraining the time frame to pre-1900, but sure. From 1899 prior, almost every time a newspaper decided not to report something that they believed was false. Because by and large, newspapers do a pretty good job of separating the wheat from the chaff and reporting stories that at least seem to be true. What they don't do is report, without editorial insight, everything they could. They don't publish every letter to the editor, they don't run every story a reporter chases, and they never have. Filtering is part of their job. We remember the errors in filtering (especially if it's a good newspaper because they will report a retraction or correction) but there isn't too terribly much evidence in black and white of the dozens of decisions editors make to not amplify the noise. Obviously, since it didn't end up in a paper. There are people in the world who believe the Earth is flat. Nobody is under any obligation to spread that belief. I'm not saying Twitter should start censoring discussion of flat Earth, but it's up to them if they choose to. I guess the result is it wouldn't be a very welcoming channel for discussion of flat Earth topics. Nothing really lost there, I guess someone will have to set up a forum for it.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    But Twitter isn’t a newspaper: they’re an aggregation and communication service who chose to censor what other people were allowed to communicate in a way that benefitted them politically — and who is not in the process of expressing regular editorial control of publication. (Unless you’re claiming that it’s not user content…?) I also wouldn’t be holding up 1880-1900 journalism as an example of accuracy — you’re describing the period of salacious Jack the Ripper stories. Is that your best example of censorship working out positively — that tabloid era in journalism? I’m asking you where this has led to positive things; not contesting the rights of Twitter. But actually, I think there is something lost when Twitter no longer hosts flat Earth debates: the ability to convincingly explain why the Earth isn’t flat requires practice and refinement; and to know that the Earth isn’t flat requires we allow the idea to be challenged. You don’t seem able to think of a case that censors showed a clear benefit to society — but there’s several in the past few years where they haven’t: - Hunter Biden story may as well have been election interference - somehow, deaths are spiking beyond COVID — quite possibly as a result of COVID policies; we never had a genuine debate over what to do - similarly, multiple countries have pulled COVID vaccines for kids due to the risk of myocarditis… which has been known all along, but was censored from discussion I was hoping to see a convincing historic example, cut free from modern politics so I could assess it fairly — but there don’t seem to be any examples where censorship generated positives to offset the huge negatives I see happening at present.

toofy 4y ago

nonsense. if an organization chooses not to use its voice to spread misinformation, thats not censorship. is it censorship when my weather app _chooses_ not to say it’s snowing when it’s 103 out? that’s absurd. one of the links posted above said some americans believe that all sides should be reported equally. again that’s stupid. not just silly, it’s stupid. “all” sides? these muppets believe “all” sides deserve equal weight, always? People used to, after midnight bury a toads leg under an oak tree on the third full moon believing it would cure cancer. are people now arguing that medical journals should be required to include this next to all cancer research? that it should be covered equally with the same weight? that’s stupid. is it censorship if a journal doesn’t include woo crazy nonsense? no, it’s an editorial choice. you can attack me and call my posts vapid all you like, but i was asking for more clarification from vague posts making extraordinary vague claims about some vague “chorus of coastal media types”