[samlevine]

I don't want social media to censor me, people I want to communicate with or people I don't ever want to communicate with.

I want tools that help me communicate with other people. Learn things, get exposed to new ideas. And we can't have that with a huge system designed to prevent people from saying the wrong things.

Our ability to communicate and learn freely is dependent on the ability for people we disagree with to also have this ability. You will be censored if you want other people censored.

[bastardoperator]

Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem?

You can communicate freely, but that doesn't mean there isn't consequences for things you speak and nobody has to host you while you're broadcasting it. I find this type of argument devolves into "I want to be a crappy person and not be judged for it or face consequences", which just isn't the reality we're living in.

[mellosouls]

I find this type of argument devolves into "I want to be a crappy person and not be judged for it or face consequences"

Whereas I find your counter-argument devolves into "Crappy people are those who disagree with my point of view and they should face consequences"...

The truth is there are extremes on both sides; but the censorship seems to be overwhelmingly driven by one.

[avgDev]

The whole "cancel culture" concept has literally be around for years, it was just marketed now and used for politics. Humans have been cancelling people and things for eternity. People with extreme views that did not align with the majority were always pushed away. This even happened in medicine and science.

[mc32]

I think the problem is the "democratization" of cancelation. Someone says something mildly controversial (some talk radio host said something terse about a neighbor) and people start lodging complaints against the employer and the hosts advertisers.

It's idiotic.

[klyrs]

As if this hasn't been happening to gay people who got outed until extremely recently. It wasn't exclusively democratic, of course: the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was only repealed a decade ago. Cancel culture isn't remotely new; only now it's punishing bigotry, not an instrument of bigotry. And, no shit, bigots are pissed about that.

[mc32]

It’s not new. The ability for people with little context whatsoever to cancel something just because is new. The democratization is the problem. There is usually little due process, if any. It’s not different from East Germany where is you wanted your neighbors bigger apartment you convict a story about them listening to west German radio programs.

It’s stupid.

In Korea they use this to cow people into behaving “properly” whatever the fuck that means. There is no reason to maintain the belief it will only be used to smoke out the “bigots”.

[howaboutnope]

Yes, and gay people were pissed about it, too. Your point? It was an unjust way to treat homosexuals, it's an unjust way to treat supposed "bigots". Especially when it turns into vulgar Gesinnungsschnüffelei combined with double standards, and reading inner motivations and beliefs into snippets, because "it could be".

[kelseyfrog]

I'm simply not convinced that cancellations of mild controversiality represent a significant proportion of total cancellations without evidence.

[monkeydreams]

> The whole "cancel culture" concept has literally be around for years, it was just marketed now and used for politics.

Yes, but the power balance shifted so that the dissatisfaction of "small" people can now be perceived and felt by the wealthy and powerful. "Small" people can organise around a cause and make the powerful uncomfortable, so the powerful attack.

[Krasnol]

You are right, it's been around since we evolved into civilized human beings actually. We even have places where people are being "cancelled" out of society. We call it "prison".

The only new thing is that it's labelled "cancel culture" which makes it somehow "bad" for some people.

[specialist]

Socrates and Jesus are two noteworthy examples.

[bastardoperator]

So how does this work? Some one is crappy for thinking violence, racism, misinformation, and harassment should never be tolerated? What's extreme about that? Please do enlighten me...

There is nothing extreme about getting booted from facebook because one can't behave like a reasonable adult. As noted above if anyone did any of this in a setting like a restaurant they would be asked to leave, coupled with assistance from law enforcement and even possible arrest for trespassing and disturbing the peace.

So who's wrong here? The businesses that don't want to be subjected to certain types of speech from customers because it impacts their business or the people that feel they have the right to say whatever they want free from consequence? Why can a McDonald's ask a customer to leave their establishment because they used the N word in front of customers, but Facebook can't? And let's be clear, in both cases no censorship occured, there was just consequences after the fact. Looking forward to your reply.

[bena]

Only point I would make is to say that censorship has occurred.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing. There are times and places to censor and be censored. Not all things should be said at all times.

I think the problem is that we see censorship as something bad, so anyone quelling speech inappropriate for the setting can't be censoring because they're doing something good, not bad. But censorship isn't bad in and of itself. It's the reason for the censorship that makes it good or bad.

Censoring people because they are criticising you? That's bad. Censoring people because they are talking about hockey on a basketball forum? That's good.

So I would say, don't fall into the trap of getting into an argument about defining censorship. Keep the argument focused along the lines of kicking assholes out of McDonalds. Have them explain how its different from that.

[_3u10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

In American constitutional law, this case established two important rules:

under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers

under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights

So far the court has rejected the application of Pruneyard to the online space, but it might change with more sympathetic plantiffs

[jimkleiber]

I was thinking about this the other day: in public physical spaces, we often have police who step in when someone says something that breaks the law. In private physical spaces (e.g., a restaurant, store, bar, or house), we either have owners, managers, or private security who step in when someone starts breaking store policy or law. However, in public (or pseudo-public) digital spaces and private digital spaces, some of us seem to rebel strongly against any type of norm enforcement.

I mean, I can see how sometimes the internet seems to promise even more freedom of speech than in physical spaces and also that sometimes there are not very clear written laws or policies for those digital spaces, paired with unclear or unfair enforcement of those laws and policies.

Makes me wonder what the future of digital governance will look like. Do we have the digital equivalent of cops roaming semi-public spaces like Twitter and Facebook? If so, by whose consent are they governing? Do these orgs hire the equivalent of private security guards or bouncers? Have they already done so through moderators and such?

Anyway, just got me thinking about some of the challenges in the governance of digital spaces.

[ThinkBeat]

Public spaces is the only place where the law regarding freedom of speech directly applies.

What you can say under such circumstances is pretty diverse.

A lot of content Facebook removes would be protected speech in a public space.

In a private physical space its up to the owner. And there is a lot of racism, misogony, bullying, sexist, misandry, threats to public figures, drugs sold, hookers, evil gossip, conspiracy theories, fake news, bad medical advice, locker room talk, inside deals, threats that go on in pubs, gyms, bars, clubs, by people of all races, genders, and ages (once you are allowed in).

If you owned a bar and you swore to avoid all of the above, you would need to kick out nearly everyone on a good night with lots of spirits and beer sold.

"Ok Bob, I know we are in rural Arizona, but what you just said, well some academic in California could find that offensive, you have to leave now. "

[stolenmerch]

> Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people.

There are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning. Cultural attitudes and mores and standards of decency shift constantly. Something you say today that seems within the bounds of good taste could be taken out of context or deemed racist/harassing later by different people. I trust you are a good citizen online and don't touch controversy, but you can't possibly know how language will evolve. I've seen simple and honest disagreements on Twitter turn into accusations of harassment in real time. The threat of misinformation is even more elusive and mercurial. I remember just a year ago when saying SARS-CoV-2 might have accidentally leaked from a lab was WIDELY considered dangerous information that should be scrubbed from the internet. Now it's at least acceptable to discuss in congress and on legacy media outlets. The "don't be a dick" model of speech regulation is full of traps and loopholes and problems that make it a bad guideline in many circumstances.

[NikolaeVarius]

I remember reading articles that claimed that the China leak theory was racist against Asians and was dangerous because it would cause violence against asians.

It was so incredibly stupid

[krapp]

It does cause violence against Asians. It adds fuel to the increasing hostility and violence that Asian communities have been experiencing ever since the outbreak began. This is the case regardless of whether or not any such theory is true, so that claim isn't incredibly stupid at all.

[honkdaddy]

So in your opinion then, if it were to be true, should the facts be covered up in order to prevent more hypothetical violence? I’m confused about this line of thinking.

[krapp]

I'm not stating an opinion on that one way or the other, only on the claim that the lab leak theory doesn't lead to violence against Asians, when increased violence against any group associated with an outbreak is common. Asians face it a lot, but gay people faced it during the AIDS crisis and Black people during Ebola.

It's not an opinion of mine, it's a well documented phenomenon[0].

[0]https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/covid-19-has-led-to-an-...

[wowokay]

Do you have studies you can link? Are they credible? Information is subjective.

[krapp]

I don't know what you consider credible, so feel free to do your own Googling. Since it's a widely reported on phenomenon, you'll find plenty of sources to choose from, and you can judge for yourself.

Also, don't keep pasting the phrase "information is subjective" into your comments, it's giving the game away.

[anamax]

It doesn't matter whether you're offended by the word "bastardchild."

What matters is that I'm offended. Heck, "bastardchild" doesn't even have to offend me because it is clearly offensive to bastards and possibly children.

Your "justification" for such offensive behavior is no different than the offensive explanations by folks who wanted to have lawn jockeys.

How dare you. Your account should be deleted.

That's how cancel culture works.

[karaterobot]

> Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, espouse unpopular political beliefs, mention atrocities committed by the government, attempt to peacefully organize against the government in power, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem?

You left a couple use cases for censorship off your list, so I added them back in. I totally agree with you, I don't do any of those things either, so no big deal for the two of us.

[_3u10]

bastardoperator, would you also say that you don't denigrate people based on their parents marital status online?

On YouTube just saying your name would get your videos demonetized and I have a feeling your username banned.

[bastardoperator]

You should do some additional research then:

https://www.youtube.com/user/BastarD/videos

Being demonetized is not censorship.

[_3u10]

Never said it was. I’m saying that big tech takes punitive actions against users that aren’t related to any of the things you don’t do.

For example on Facebook men are allowed to show nipples on pictures while women are not. For Canada at least, that’s discrimination based on sex / gender. Many big tech moderation policies actively encourage discrimination.

It's great to know your username is currently acceptable to YouTube.

Basically what happens on FB is comments get wildly misconstrued by the mod team / AI, thankfully it appears the mod team or it AI has a limited vocabulary so as long as you use 5 syllable words to describe your thoughts its pretty easy to avoid.

I tend to agree with you that censorship is probably an inexact or overreaching term for what's going on. Of course social media is balancing a number of factors, pleasing their regulators, pleasing their advertisers, pleasing their employees. It feels like the creation of a Digital Singapore in the vein of William Gibson's 1993 article Disneyland with the Death Penalty. (Of course the penalties are much less severe) https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/

-------------

"IT'S LIKE AN entire country run by Jeffrey Katzenberg," the producer had said, "under the motto 'Be happy or I'll kill you.'" We were sitting in an office a block from Rodeo Drive, on large black furniture leased with Japanese venture capital.

Now that I'm actually here, the Disneyland metaphor is proving impossible to shake. For that matter, Rodeo Drive comes frequently to mind, though the local equivalent feels more like 30 or 40 Beverly Centers put end to end.

;-)

Was it Laurie Anderson who said that VR would never look real until they learned how to put some dirt in it? Singapore's airport, the Changi Airtropolis, seemed to possess no more resolution than some early VPL world. There was no dirt whatsoever; no muss, no furred fractal edge to things. Outside, the organic, florid as ever in the tropics, had been gardened into brilliant green, and all-too-perfect examples of itself. Only the clouds were feathered with chaos—weird columnar structures towering above the Strait of China.

[tasogare]

> Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people.

You didn't did it yet. All of those are moving targets, and moving extremely fast especially in the US. I could say a dozen of totally non controversial statements in my country of residence (Japan), half of which being controversial or labeled some kind of -ist in my own country (France) and all of them warranting me cancellation in the US. At this rate what you are writing now will be categorized racist, threatening or harassing in a few years or so. Even your nickname could already be considered some kind of harassment as it single out kids born out of wedlock and is thus enforcing "the patriarchy". (Think it's far-fetched? Have a look at GitHub renaming the master branch)

[bastardoperator]

I disagree and if you look at my profile I provide a explanatory url for the name. As a bastard child myself I'm not concerned and when used as noun the meaning changes. I do think it's funny that people still do not understand git well enough to realize that the default branch is whatever you want it to be. Even worse, this change/name is a click away in GitHub too. What exactly am I saying here that will be controversial in the future? I'm genuinely curious.

[wowokay]

If we want to go “there” then can I deem all nudity be censored? Your fixation on viewing things as either racist or not racist, as information or misinformation is opinionated. I think it is wrong that people can tweet pornography on the platform without any censorship. I doubt the Gay Comunity would be okay with that being censored, those are the posts I am subjected too. The point is any form of censorship will hamper someone’s freedom of speech. Why can’t everyone just block people that post what they don’t like? The way I do on twitter? Otherwise if we are going down the block what I don’t like road so will I!

[mc32]

You may not have raised any questions about Covid provenance, spoken about Hunter Biden's cavorting the efficacy of Covid treatments, etc.

I'm sure there are tons more actual legal things you cannot freely talk about on FB.

[jeffrogers]

What do you call it when you make a post that you assume your friends can see and only some are presented your post?

[darkwizard42]

What do you mean by presented? If I have a friend who has 4000 friends and I am their 4000th most important friend, I would sufficiently believe that a generic post of mine would not appear at the top of their feed and they might not see it.

I get the idea of not having all the "so and so friend liked so and so's post" which feel low quality in a feed, but part of a custom feed is prioritizing updates from people you actually want to see updates from

[jeffrogers]

If you were making the choice as to which friends you wanted to hear from or updates you wanted to receive from you're friends, then I take you point. When someone else, or their algorithm, makes these decisions that is something else and it may actually veer into censorship.

[darkwizard42]

Hm. This argument falls flat to me. A feed is considered editorialized by you, but nearly any combo of content is editorialized to some degree. A magazine makes editorial decisions on where in the magazine articles are placed... this does not mean its censorship, it just means you haven't read the whole thing.

Also, the tools exists on all of these social media products to actually go and check on your friends' pages where you can see their updates. Nothing stops you from doing that and consuming the content you wish.

[jeffrogers]

Well, however someone might consider feeds, we don’t have the ability to truly take control of them. At least in the case of Facebook, they mostly decide what we see and they very deliberately make the case that they are not a media company like the magazines. They are claiming they are not editorializing because the machines are making the decisions. (Albeit with instructions from their engineers.)

[specialist]

Listserv? Distribution list? Phone tree?

[jeffrogers]

Those are different. In those cases content is sent to the intended recipients. Whether they see it or not is up to the receivers. In the case of some social media platforms, the platforms decide who should be sent the content, regardless of the sender’s intent.

[FFRefresh]

Do you think you should face consequences for your username?

People of color are more likely to be called that slur, and you are their “operator”? I talked to my BIPOC friends and they think that’s incredibly racist. They say you are dehumanizing them and are clearly a white supremacist who celebrates operating POC. They are experiencing trauma right now given the outright violence of your name.

[olah_1]

> Then again I don't spread misinformation

They cut the phone lines in Chernobyl for the same reason.

[MR4D]

> I'm not censored on any platform

But your username is enough to get you kicked off of many.