4 ms·

A bit tangential, but it seems that there is more acceptance for censorship than there has been for a while. There is also more acceptance for violating the un

by mc32 3y ago

A bit tangential, but it seems that there is more acceptance for censorship than there has been for a while. There is also more acceptance for violating the understanding of protecting journalistic sources -CBS apparently took possession of personal notes and files of a reporter it fired. I don't think the Pentagon Files would fly today. You can find more and more articles arguing why censorship is a good thing.

vaylian 3y ago
Or maybe it's just propaganda that is spread by the censors?
tenebrisalietum 3y ago
The only ones that seem to want and benefit most from a global filter-free "public square" are: A. entities conducting surveillance, such as data brokers. B. entities wanting to manufacture consent through campaigns consisting of content that is non-geniune or ragebaity. C. fatherless immature 13-year-olds (or actors at that maturity level) that still think Internet trolling is funny in 2024. D. entities that really want the Internet to behave like a one-way broadcast medium, like television. No one actually wants A, B, and C other than entities that are A, B, and C. A decent portion probably doesn't want D either. All of these have been increasing in scale on the Internet as time passes. I'm all for using a global public square, but I am not going to respect it or use it really unless there is way for me to avoid A, B, and C. The government shouldn't do this. It'd be nice if the platform could do this automatically as a feature, but it's not a solved problem yet. And that's OK - if the platform lets me manage what I see, I can solve it myself, which it's really a "me" problem anyway. It'd be nicer if the platform lets me and like-minded individuals subscribe to and manage blocklists, and if I think the blocklist manager is off their rocker, I can unsubscribe to it. And if the government required "public squares" on the Internet to have such a feature, that'd be awesome, but I'm not holding my breath. You can call this censorship if you want, but if it's initiated and chosen by me and not the government or other arrangements of authorities where you cannot opt out, then so what?
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  > The only ones that seem to want and benefit most from a global filter-free "public square" are: [...] How exactly did you come to this conclusion? Seems pretty arbitrary.
  - mc32 3y ago
    I don't agree with the Ps take. China, Russia and Iran definitely do not want a filter-free internet. They want to suppress discourse. They censor because they want to control the narrative and to deliver their own propaganda. Western nations seem to have become attracted to the approach authoritarians have been using since we had a printing press. We saw that with Covid and also with the infamous Hunter Biden laptop as well as with mass shootings --sometimes they disclose info, other times they don't disclose info.
  - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
    Experience and this is observable by anyone. Your use of the word arbitrary is incorrect.
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      You've provided no reasoning to support your claims, even when I asked you to. I therefore dismiss your claims as an arbitrary opinion.
rnd0 3y ago
It is weird and disturbing that free speech has become seen as a far right value as if the only reason anyone would support free speech would be to use slurs. Freedom of speech is the freedom to dissent; you can't have dissent in a society that doesn't allow freedom of speech. Yet the left has become strangely anti-free speech and supportive of censorship. Both the left and the right are depressingly authoritarian, at least from where I'm standing -but you'd expect fascists (and their supporters) to be.
- mc32 3y ago
  It's become labeled as far right because anything that doesn't fit a narrative is lumped in with far-right activity. You want border security = far right. Want eVerify enforced = far-right. Would rather devote taxes to homeless and US citizen poor people rather than immigrants entering illegally = far right. So it's not only neo-nazis and the kkk and the like who are classified as "far-right" it's just about any one who on social issues does not align with a progressive agenda is labeled far right. Basically Biden of the early 2000s would be classified as far-right today. Clinton's presidency would be labeled far right, if he ran today as he ran in the late 90s. That said, both the actual far lefts and the actual far rights do love authoritarianism and censorship --no question.

by mc32 3y ago

vaylian 3y ago

Or maybe it's just propaganda that is spread by the censors?

tenebrisalietum 3y ago

The only ones that seem to want and benefit most from a global filter-free "public square" are: A. entities conducting surveillance, such as data brokers. B. entities wanting to manufacture consent through campaigns consisting of content that is non-geniune or ragebaity. C. fatherless immature 13-year-olds (or actors at that maturity level) that still think Internet trolling is funny in 2024. D. entities that really want the Internet to behave like a one-way broadcast medium, like television. No one actually wants A, B, and C other than entities that are A, B, and C. A decent portion probably doesn't want D either. All of these have been increasing in scale on the Internet as time passes. I'm all for using a global public square, but I am not going to respect it or use it really unless there is way for me to avoid A, B, and C. The government shouldn't do this. It'd be nice if the platform could do this automatically as a feature, but it's not a solved problem yet. And that's OK - if the platform lets me manage what I see, I can solve it myself, which it's really a "me" problem anyway. It'd be nicer if the platform lets me and like-minded individuals subscribe to and manage blocklists, and if I think the blocklist manager is off their rocker, I can unsubscribe to it. And if the government required "public squares" on the Internet to have such a feature, that'd be awesome, but I'm not holding my breath. You can call this censorship if you want, but if it's initiated and chosen by me and not the government or other arrangements of authorities where you cannot opt out, then so what?

bheadmaster 3y ago
> The only ones that seem to want and benefit most from a global filter-free "public square" are: [...] How exactly did you come to this conclusion? Seems pretty arbitrary.
- mc32 3y ago
  I don't agree with the Ps take. China, Russia and Iran definitely do not want a filter-free internet. They want to suppress discourse. They censor because they want to control the narrative and to deliver their own propaganda. Western nations seem to have become attracted to the approach authoritarians have been using since we had a printing press. We saw that with Covid and also with the infamous Hunter Biden laptop as well as with mass shootings --sometimes they disclose info, other times they don't disclose info.
- tenebrisalietum 3y ago
  Experience and this is observable by anyone. Your use of the word arbitrary is incorrect.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    You've provided no reasoning to support your claims, even when I asked you to. I therefore dismiss your claims as an arbitrary opinion.

rnd0 3y ago

It is weird and disturbing that free speech has become seen as a far right value as if the only reason anyone would support free speech would be to use slurs. Freedom of speech is the freedom to dissent; you can't have dissent in a society that doesn't allow freedom of speech. Yet the left has become strangely anti-free speech and supportive of censorship. Both the left and the right are depressingly authoritarian, at least from where I'm standing -but you'd expect fascists (and their supporters) to be.

mc32 3y ago
It's become labeled as far right because anything that doesn't fit a narrative is lumped in with far-right activity. You want border security = far right. Want eVerify enforced = far-right. Would rather devote taxes to homeless and US citizen poor people rather than immigrants entering illegally = far right. So it's not only neo-nazis and the kkk and the like who are classified as "far-right" it's just about any one who on social issues does not align with a progressive agenda is labeled far right. Basically Biden of the early 2000s would be classified as far-right today. Clinton's presidency would be labeled far right, if he ran today as he ran in the late 90s. That said, both the actual far lefts and the actual far rights do love authoritarianism and censorship --no question.