4 ms·
If you don't see anything wrong with the government forcing censorship on controversial political questions, such as whether elections are safe and fair, just i
by machina_ex_deus 4y ago
If you don't see anything wrong with the government forcing censorship on controversial political questions, such as whether elections are safe and fair, just imagine your own reaction if after the 2016 election, Trump's FBI would be monitoring Twitter for any information about Cambridge Analytica / Russia's interference, labeling them as misinformation and censoring and banning everyone mentioning them.
If your values only apply when they fit your wanted outcome, they aren't values they are pathetic excuses.
By the way, this opens the door to all the other agencies of the world outside US to demand same kind of access. Including European. Maybe China wants it too.
And for the record, I think Elon banning Elon Jet and journalists is wrong too. But there are too many people who only care about the censorship when it hurts them, and cheer for it when it suits them.
- asynchronous 4y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 4y agoYou should probably briefly skim the Wikipedia article on the Gestapo.
- poszlem 4y agoIt's unsettling to see how lacking in ethical principles some people are. If you truly believe that you would not care if a highly Republican-leaning social media company was collaborating with the government to suppress content from Democratic creators, then I can understand your perspective. However, it's likely that this situation would be viewed differently if the roles were reversed.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoI do get bored of the evidently weak character and hypocrisy.
- cyberphobe 4y agoI’m fine with the government shutting down anti-democratic movements. I’m not fine with anti-democratic governments shutting down legitimate discussion that looks bad on them, or serving a foreign power. These are not the same thing.
- machina_ex_deus 4y agoThen all it will take to lose your democracy is for a dictator to proclaim his opponents a danger to democracy. Maybe using a Reichstag fire. You can't fight evil with evil, or fight undemocratic tyrants with undemocratic measures. Introducing vulnerabilities into your democratic system is a double edged sword.
- oprah 4y agoExactly. What does anti-democratic mean? A brief reminder that North Korea's full name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea and East Germany was German Democratic Republic. The reason we would usually go for the fullest amount of protection for speech was precisely because most of those issues are not simply a matter of "these people are democratic and those aren't".
- cyberphobe 4y ago> all it will take to lose your democracy is for a dictator to proclaim his opponents a danger to democracy. This is true, but your framing of it as something that could be stopped if… something? is absurd
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago> proclaim [their] opponents a danger to democracy Hmm, now where have I heard that recently?
- cyberphobe 4y agoFortunately we can use our brains to think and realize that while both sides are calling the other a danger to democracy, only one of them made a concerted effort to overturn the results of an election (an overtly anti-democratic act)
- acdha 4y ago> If you don't see anything wrong with the government forcing censorship on controversial political questions Nobody is saying that it wouldn’t be a problem. The debate is whether the Twitter Files shows anything of the sort, and begging the question like that calls into question whether you’re actually interested in a honest discussion.
- machina_ex_deus 4y agoIs that the debate? Because I think it's pretty settled the files show extensive collaboration of the FBI and Twitter on controversial topics, it shows many instances of twits censored by a request from the FBI. Am I moving the debate position or are you? Did you even read them? Many comments here accept the existing evidence as something normal. I disagree strongly.
- acdha 4y agoI read them, and I know that what I saw was the FBI reporting TOS violations. Can you provide a link to a tweet which you believe was censored but was not in fact a TOS violation?
- nickthegreek 4y agoFirst you said it was forced censorship, now you are stating it was extensive collaboration. Do you see that those are not the same? Which of the removed tweets shows the FBI was acting in obvious bad faith? I just don’t see it.