3 ms·
> To the original question of proof, it sounds like we agree that there is indeed proof that tech platforms were censoring the right. No, we do not agree. A lo
by Timon3 4y ago
> To the original question of proof, it sounds like we agree that there is indeed proof that tech platforms were censoring the right.
No, we do not agree. A lot of what the right calls "censoring" is nothing more than "making the platform a space normal people want to participate in". By their conflation of very normal practices (e.g. banning people for racist language, or purposeful misgendering) with censorship I've stopped giving them any benefit of the doubt.
You're free to show scientific assessments of censorship of the right, but until then it's nothing more than the usual propaganda for me.
- _heimdall 4y ago> making the platform a space normal people want to participate in How are you defining normal here? Discussion of vaccine efficacy, test validity during vaccine trials, alternative medical treatments, and even the basic fundamental purpose of informed consent were all being censored. Those topics broadly fit on the right in general, with a focus on individual freedom, and aren't specific to the far right. Are you arguing that topics relate to a general opinion of individual vs collective views, broadly held by roughly half our population, aren't normal and should be isolated and silenced? Are you further arguing that its right for minority views to be thrown out, silenced, and those individuals stripped of their right to free speech? If so, where is that line drawn when compared to other political battles fought by the left to protect and shine a light on opinions of other minority groups?
- Timon3 4y agoI'm not interested in arguing the specifics, I've done so before. You're free to bring up scientific evidence for the claim of censorship. Until then I'll treat it as I try to treat pretty much anything "commonly known" - as hearsay.
- _heimdall 4y agoEvidence for censorship is never going to fit into a scientific context, especially when you're actually concerned with intent rather than statistical significance or similar data. You asked for proof and there's plenty out there. Claiming now that the proof doesn't count because it doesn't also prove the negative is asinine. Had you asked for proof that only one side was being censored that'd be a whole different question but you simply asked for proof that the right was being censored.
- Timon3 4y ago> Evidence for censorship is never going to fit into a scientific context, especially when you're actually concerned with intent rather than statistical significance or similar data. Generally speaking, if you can't provide scientific evidence for something, it's not worth thinking about. Even if I were to agree that censorship will not be scientifically studied by scientists (which I do not) any individual could still try to follow the scientific method to gather evidence of such censorship. I have not seen such evidence, and every time I've previously tried to follow "plenty of evidence out there" it has not convinced me. Ask yourself: why not follow the scientific method, publish clear data etc.? I think this is not done because it would show that such censorship doesn't exist beyond what is usually expected of social media. If you have a different reason (or even data?) feel free to show it!
- _heimdall 4y agoVideo of a person commuting a crime is evidence but not scientific as it never followed the scientific method. Should it be thrown out and not considered since it isn't scientific?
- Timon3 4y agoSorry, but what exactly are you trying to do? Are we in a hearing, looking at legal standards of evidence? I've told you my terms, and you're not going to convince me to move off my standards. Either engage on those terms, or please just save both of us the time and don't engage.