Social Media & Censorship (1 Viewer)

[toshiba]

Do you feel that these private companies that hold so much power are doing the right things when then ban groups or users that they decide should not be on their platform? Do you think it is good when hosting services, domain name registrar, apps stores, etc prevent companies from using their services? Does it matter to you if those groups are based on race, sexual preference or political/social stances?

Personally I am okay with hate groups being barred from all manners of the online discourse by companies that do not want them around, but maybe hypocritically hate it when people/groups are banned based of of race, religion, sexual preference, gender, ...

I actually a ok with stories like this...

Gab, the social network used by the Pittsburgh suspect, has been taken offline

But I would love to hear what people here think.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Not really in support of censoring anyone.  Because as soon as you support it for one group (you disagree with) then you have to support it for other groups (you don't disagree with) or it's going to continue to fuel anger and divide.

Besides, let the hate groups inform the rest of us who they are.  So they can have a target on their back as potential criminals of hate crimes.  

 

[toshiba]

Not really in support of censoring anyone.  Because as soon as you support it for one group (you disagree with) then you have to support it for other groups (you don't disagree with) or it's going to continue to fuel anger and divide.

Besides, let the hate groups inform the rest of us who they are.  So they can have a target on their back as potential criminals of hate crimes.  

So do you think all social media companies, and all other private entities should allow everyone to say whatever they want?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The problem for the platform hosting gab is they could be sued or abandoned by clients yet Gab puts no restrictions on content. They could also just be genuinely disgusted by what’s on there. Same thing happened with Stormfront. If you have a books store or publishing company it’s totally up to you to decide what it sells.

 

[Rove!]

The problem for the platform hosting gab is they could be sued or abandoned by clients yet Gab puts no restrictions on content. They could also just be genuinely disgusted by what’s on there. Same thing happened with Stormfront. If you have a books store or publishing company it’s totally up to you to decide what it sells.

So you are in favor of small group of billionaires being able to dictate what people can and cannot talk about on the internet?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The only thing more dangerous than free, though vile, ignorant and disgusting,  speech, is censorship.  Seek not to control my mind or prohibit my thought by limiting my exposure to ideas, rather seek to persuade me through intelligent argumentation and presentation of ideas.  Either that or imply I might get a hottie if I adopt your perspective.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

So you are in favor of small group of billionaires being able to dictate what people can and cannot talk about on the internet?

I'll take that job if no one has signed up yet.

 

[squistion]

So you are in favor of small group of billionaires being able to dictate what people can and cannot talk about on the internet?

Don't you just love conservatives who want the government to regulate private industry?

People can talk about what they want on the internet. It is not like Facebook and Twitter are the only game in town.

 

[timschochet]

I’m really glad you raised this question. I lean toward the anti-censorship side, but I don’t know for sure. I’m not sure I’m right. 

Here’s what I do think is a good idea: there should be law enforcement people whose primary job is to monitor all sites considered hate sites, and follow up on people considered dangerous. Perhaps that could save lives. From what I read, the Obama administration started to do this but Trump cut the funding. I think it ought to be a major effort. 

 

[toshiba]

I’m really glad you raised this question. I lean toward the anti-censorship side, but I don’t know for sure. I’m not sure I’m right. 

Here’s what I do think is a good idea: there should be law enforcement people whose primary job is to monitor all sites considered hate sites, and follow up on people considered dangerous. Perhaps that could save lives. From what I read, the Obama administration started to do this but Trump cut the funding. I think it ought to be a major effort. 

So sort of like using these platforms like I use confederate flags.  If I see someone with a confederate flag I make assumptions about them, so the government should monitor these sites and make assumptions about these people and watch/investigate them?

 

[toshiba]

The problem for the platform hosting gab is they could be sued or abandoned by clients yet Gab puts no restrictions on content. They could also just be genuinely disgusted by what’s on there. Same thing happened with Stormfront. If you have a books store or publishing company it’s totally up to you to decide what it sells.

So you are in favor of small group of billionaires being able to dictate what people can and cannot talk about on the internet?

What are you in favor of? 

Do you think a company should have the right to limit speech they wish to or or not?

 

[Henry Ford]

I believe that a business of any kind should feel free to ask people to leave if it doesn't like what they're shouting while on the premises.  

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I’m really glad you raised this question. I lean toward the anti-censorship side, but I don’t know for sure. I’m not sure I’m right. 

Here’s what I do think is a good idea: there should be law enforcement people whose primary job is to monitor all sites considered hate sites, and follow up on people considered dangerous. Perhaps that could save lives. From what I read, the Obama administration started to do this but Trump cut the funding. I think it ought to be a major effort. 

Considered hate sites by whom and follow up how?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Even as we type powerful algorithms are combing the net and the airwaves for key words and phrases.

 

[Ilov80s]

I believe that a business of any kind should feel free to ask people to leave if it doesn't like what they're shouting while on the premises.  

Yeah, seems like a pretty simple issue. Twitter has millions of users. If they think that the way some users are using the site could turn off a larger group of users, it just makes sense to remove the problematic users. It is not censorship of the internet. There are millions of internet sites/apps for people to communicate on. If PayPal doesn't want to do business with someone anymore, that is their decision. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I believe that a business of any kind should feel free to ask people to leave if it doesn't like what they're shouting while on the premises.  

If businesses censor that is their business.  Government censorship is another matter entirely.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I’m really glad you raised this question. I lean toward the anti-censorship side, but I don’t know for sure. I’m not sure I’m right. 

Here’s what I do think is a good idea: there should be law enforcement people whose primary job is to monitor all sites considered hate sites, and follow up on people considered dangerous. Perhaps that could save lives. From what I read, the Obama administration started to do this but Trump cut the funding. I think it ought to be a major effort. 

Exactly.  Censoring them just makes it more difficult to find them.  Unfortunately all of them aren't identified in advance but let them spew their hate and put a target on their back.

 

[Rove!]

What are you in favor of? 

Do you think a company should have the right to limit speech they wish to or or not?

It’s a good question.  

I don’t have an answe on how to best handle the situation, but the current situation gives too much power over into the hands of very few and that much power almost always leads to abuse of power.  

Something along the lines of very specific TOS and arbitration might help....

 

[Thunderlips]

I think the main reason you're seeing a lot of complaining from The Right on this is because they haven't figured out how to make it their own yet.  

 

[toshiba]

What are you in favor of? 

Do you think a company should have the right to limit speech they wish to or or not?

It’s a good question.  

I don’t have an answe on how to best handle the situation, but the current situation gives too much power over into the hands of very few and that much power almost always leads to abuse of power.  

Something along the lines of very specific TOS and arbitration might help....

You mean TOS that a company is mandated to use by the government?  

 

[mcintyre1]

Obligatory XKCD comic

 

[The Commish]

I don't know about censorship of entire sites, but I am absolutely ok with removing the cloak of anonymity that people hide behind while spouting their garbage.

 

[timschochet]

Considered hate sites by whom and follow up how?

I don’t know. I want people smarter than I am about this subject to decide that, in such a way that it will be difficult to abuse. 

 

[toshiba]

Obligatory XKCD comic

But it seems some people want to essentially expand the first amendment to include private entities. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

In general I support the right of a business choosing who it wants as customers.  The obvious exception is when they are discriminating against a protected class. 

 

[mcintyre1]

While Social Media has been pretty transformational to society (debatable as to whether that transformation has been a net good or a net evil), I don't really see why this is any different than other instances of mass communication throughout our history when it comes to free speech.

Take newspapers, for example. 100 years ago, they were similarly powerful in spreading ideas, ideologies, news, etc. as social media is today. However, it wasn't considered a violation of free speech or censorship for a newspaper to not run your letter to the editor. The ideas behind free speech don't require a newspaper to reproduce your words, they simply protect your right to create your own newspaper/newsletter if you want. It is on you to find an audience for said speech, no one else is required to provide that audience for you.

To compare that to today, you have a "right" to create your own space on the Internet to spread your views, while popular social media sites or other forums and venues have no obligation to provide you an audience.

This is where things get a bit stickier, as we've (as humanity) added many layers of complexity to the formula of getting to produce your own material and distribute it to the masses. If you utilize the services of others, that process can be incredibly easy, but by doing so you're consenting to the fact that those people providing you a service have every right to stop providing that service, completely arbitrarily. Your right to freedom of speech/expression/what have you only gives you the bare minimum of rights in this situation, ie. at a base level you can say whatever you want (within the law), but that's really only completely true if you're willing to put in the effort to produce every single piece of that pipeline from your brain to the wider Internet yourself. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I don’t know. I want people smarter than I am about this subject to decide that, in such a way that it will be difficult to abuse. 

Me, I do not know how to remove this pain from life.  I do not know how to stop, limit, or control ignorance without sacrificing rights and subjecting ourselves to abuses of such powers.  I worry that the cure may kill us, in fact I think that extremely likely.  That said, perhaps my limited view restrains my imagination. Sometimes in my cynicism I believe the Dread Pirate Wesley  Roberts was right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThDwS79HPhs

 

[NCCommish]

I didn't like when radio stations and record stores basically disappeared the Dixie Chicks but they had the right to do so. They pay the bills they get to call the shots. 

This is not a free speech issue. This a market issue. These people make choices based on what they think is best for their businesses. Build your own Facebook, Twitter, YouTube . Pay for the infrastructure, pay for the bandwidth. Then you can call the shots. Until then when you are in someone else's house their rules.

 

[jonessed]

Me, I do not know how to remove this pain from life.  I do not know how to stop, limit, or control ignorance without sacrificing rights and subjecting ourselves to abuses of such powers.  I worry that the cure may kill us, in fact I think that extremely likely.  That said, perhaps my limited view restrains my imagination. Sometimes in my cynicism I believe the Dread Pirate Wesley  Roberts was right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThDwS79HPhs

Seems like common sense to me.

The idea that we should have a select group of wealthy intellectuals determining what public speech should or should not be banned is about as un-American an idea as one could come up with.

 

[mcintyre1]

Seems like common sense to me.

The idea that we should have a select group of wealthy intellectuals determining what public speech should or should not be banned is about as un-American an idea as one could come up with.

Facebook/Twitter/Linkedin/Instagram/Gab/whoever isn't "public speech" -- it is privately hosted speech masquerading as public speech. You can argue that our concept of the right to free speech is outdated or must be updated, but there is no argument that a privately owned, privately hosted platform is "public speech." That'd be like requiring the New York Times to print every crazy *******'s manifesto, so long as they sent it in. 

 

[jonessed]

Facebook/Twitter/Linkedin/Instagram/Gab/whoever isn't "public speech" -- it is privately hosted speech masquerading as public speech. You can argue that our concept of the right to free speech is outdated or must be updated, but there is no argument that a privately owned, privately hosted platform is "public speech." That'd be like requiring the New York Times to print every crazy *******'s manifesto, so long as they sent it in. 

It was referring to websites.  I would consider the Internet a domain of free speech.

 

[mcintyre1]

It was referring to websites.  I would consider the Internet a domain of free speech.

Right, the Internet is. As I stated in another post above, the tangled web of services that make it easy to host things on the Internet are not a domain of free speech.

 

[NCCommish]

It was referring to websites.  I would consider the Internet a domain of free speech.

Then you'd be wrong. The place where you are posting right now is a private forum with rules and that will ban you if you break those rules. And they have every right to do so as does every other business that provides such a space. 

 

[jonessed]

Then you'd be wrong. The place where you are posting right now is a private forum with rules and that will ban you if you break those rules. And they have every right to do so as does every other business that provides such a space. 

I’m not referring to a private forum.  I’m referring to the government policing websites.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Facebook/Twitter/Linkedin/Instagram/Gab/whoever isn't "public speech" -- it is privately hosted speech masquerading as public speech. You can argue that our concept of the right to free speech is outdated or must be updated, but there is no argument that a privately owned, privately hosted platform is "public speech." That'd be like requiring the New York Times to print every crazy *******'s manifesto, so long as they sent it in. 

For more than a quarter of a century malls, privately owned for profit businesses, have been considered, under certain circumstances, public fora.

 

[Henry Ford]

For more than a quarter of a century malls, privately owned for profit businesses, have been considered, under certain circumstances, public fora.

Wait, are we talking about Robins?  

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Wait, are we talking about Robins?  

Pruneyard, yeah.  It lead to some interesting case law in my state, though I see that is a minority position in maybe six states while the majority of states  have held the line.  I thought it lead to a bit more, but apparently not. 

The Westminster Mall case reverberated so strongly through Colorado I forgot it was local and not national.

https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1991/90sc433-0.html

 

[NCCommish]

I’m not referring to a private forum.  I’m referring to the government policing websites.

And what websites has the government been policing?

 

[jonessed]

And what websites has the government been policing?

It was a theoretical discussion.

 

[NCCommish]

It was a theoretical discussion.

Ah I thought we were dealing with the current reality.

 

[Henry Ford]

Pruneyard, yeah.  It lead to some interesting case law in my state, though I see that is a minority position in maybe six states.  I thought it lead to a bit more, but apparently not. 

The Westminster Mall case reverberated so strongly through Colorado I forgot it was local and not national.

https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1991/90sc433-0.html

Right.  Robins v. Pruneyard and Bock v. Westminster Mall were State Constitution cases and SCOTUS basically said the State could give those rights to the public without violating the U.S. Constitution regarding the property owner.

 

[mcintyre1]

Pruneyard, yeah.  It lead to some interesting case law in my state, though I see that is a minority position in maybe six states while the majority of states  have held the line.  I thought it lead to a bit more, but apparently not. 

The Westminster Mall case reverberated so strongly through Colorado I forgot it was local and not national.

https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1991/90sc433-0.html

I'll easily admit I could be wrong, I'm certainly no lawyer. I'll have to look at that more later, thanks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It’s a good question.  

I don’t have an answe on how to best handle the situation, but the current situation gives too much power over into the hands of very few and that much power almost always leads to abuse of power.  

Something along the lines of very specific TOS and arbitration might help....

I kind of think this is where we are right now. The violent nature of the speech at issue on Gab and Stormfront is the problem. The entities running those sights have contractual rights. Even using what you have here I almost can guarantee you they’d still be in violation of the host’s TOS. 

I am a serious free speech advocate. I even agree with the public forum concept DW notes above. But look at the case, it was about a *non-violent group advocating for peace. The situations with Gab and Stormfront are very different.

 

[Rove!]

I kind of think this is where we are right now. The violent nature of the speech at issue on Gab and Stormfront is the problem. The entities running those sights have contractual rights. Even using what you have here I almost can guarantee you they’d still be in violation of the host’s TOS. 

I am a serious free speech advocate. I even agree with the public forum concept DW notes above. But look at the case, it was about a *non-violent group advocating for peace. The situations with Gab and Stormfront are very different.

My understanding of Gab is that they do not censor...even if people say racist things, whereas Stormfront is a website devoted to an (abhorrent) ideological view.  

If Gab is is intent on not censoring speech, then I am not sure they sign a contract that requires them to censor content, but I don’t know the details.

this is new ground, to be sure, and we will need to see how best to proceed

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

My understanding of Gab is that they do not censor...even if people say racist things, whereas Stormfront is a website devoted to an (abhorrent) ideological view.  

If Gab is is intent on not censoring speech, then I am not sure they sign a contract that requires them to censor content, but I don’t know the details.

this is new ground, to be sure, and we will need to see how best to proceed

Well as DW pointed out I’m not sure it is new ground. The internet is just a virtual representation of the traditional paper and air media worlds.

For gab, the platform host doesn’t care if gab is creating it or simply sub-hosting it themselves. Think of it like an apartment. Does the landlord care if you personally are trashing the place or if you are subletting it to someone who is? No, he can throw the dweller out and the people he’s letting stay on as his guests.

 

[ren hoek]

Obligatory XKCD comic

This really mischaracterizes the argument.  Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey didn’t even want to police their platforms beyond the TOS they already had in place.  It was the threat of regulation and increased oversight, even outright bans in foreign countries that got them to play ball.  But because 2016 melted people’s brains, they are fine with Silicon Valley and leviathan states collaborating on who gets deplatformed and who doesn’t.  

It’s not just Alex Jones, who the shortsighted author of this comic is referring to.  It’s police accountability pages, socialist pages, libertarian pages, conspiracy/‘free thought’ pages, pro-Palestinian pages (pro-Israel pages are fine of course), even legitimate television networks.  Within 24 hours, Alex Jones was banished from Twitter/Youtube/Facebook.  It’s effectively censorship.  

 

[NFL2DF]

So you are in favor of small group of billionaires being able to dictate what people can and cannot talk about on the internet?

That is where we are at in 2018.

Speech you disagree with is labeled "hate speech" and people are silenced.

I could make a comparison to the moderation here but that would get labeled as trolling or abusive language and I would he suspended.

 

[NFL2DF]

Don't you just love conservatives who want the government to regulate private industry?

People can talk about what they want on the internet. It is not like Facebook and Twitter are the only game in town.

They are the only game in town when the controllers of the "internet" aka the app marketplace (Apple and Google) prevent competitors from access under the guise of "hate speech".

It will he interesting to see if the DOJ takes any action next spring.

 

[ren hoek]

It’s hard to imagine a more blatant form of censorship than state agencies and military brass picking and choosing what type of information billions of users are allowed to have exposure to.  

 

[Rove!]

I didn't like when radio stations and record stores basically disappeared the Dixie Chicks but they had the right to do so. They pay the bills they get to call the shots. 

This is not a free speech issue. This a market issue. These people make choices based on what they think is best for their businesses. Build your own Facebook, Twitter, YouTube . Pay for the infrastructure, pay for the bandwidth. Then you can call the shots. Until then when you are in someone else's house their rules.

Does a bakery have the right not to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they “pay the bills..”