[Gupie]

Classic slippery slope fallacy. Censorship is necessary to limit harm to the vulnerable in society. Or are you on favour of allowing rape videos, kiddie porn, ..., of allowing ‘Troll factories’ to spread Russian pro-war lies online?

[seniorivn]

sorry for the late reply, but here it is anyway

My ideal social network is a network where all kinds public statements are completely free to be published. If you publish something illegal you should be legally liable for that. If something illegal was published anonymously, an author should be given a time threshold when he can prove his/her personality and become personally liable for that content/statement.

The only additional feature that would improve user experience without harming people's freedom, is labeling of content by a thirdparty(chosen by the enduser, like i would chose one labeling system of content, that would put the most horrible things under "nsfw" clickwall, and someone else might choose a labeling system that puts under a clickwall(one click away for you to view that) everything that has a chance to offend anyone)

Horrible content like footage of crimes presented as entertainment should be treated the same way as described above.

[xaedes]

Classic fallacy fallacy. The fallacy fallacy is a fallacy that asserts that because an argument is fallacious, the conclusion of the argument is false.

[Gupie]

I correctly pointed out that his argument was fallacious. I didn't say that the conclusion of his argument was false because he used a fallacy. Instead I backed my point of view with a coherent argument.

[Amezarak]

I am in fact in favor of “troll factories” being allowed to spread “pro war propaganda” online, because I do not think we should have the norm in place that videos can simply be declared propaganda and censored because they might cause someone to disagree with the foreign policy goals of whatever government they live under.

For example, if that was permissible and expected, then I would fully expect a hypothetical video of $ALLY/SELF committing war crimes to be censored as $ENEMY propaganda. Just as the Russians do. If you entrust the “experts” with the ability to tell you what is true, you will not be living in a democratic society.

[Gupie]

I was arguing against the dogma that all censorship is bad. I can understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it. We are in an information war with Russia (and other such undemocratic entities). We have been for years and we have been losing it.

I am also needless to say against war crimes no matter which side perpetrates them so videos of $ALLY/SELF committing them that come from reputable source or that can be verified should not be censored.

[Amezarak]

You cannot have censorship of “disinformation” and democracy. They are necessary antagonisms. If you want a free society you just have to accept that sometimes people will hear and believe untruths and do your best to argue your side. This has been the case from the beginning - even in America, we have ample examples from the post-revolutionary era of people complaining that “designing men” were misleading the public to rile them up against their representatives. And of course, the Adams administration used the foreign policy position of the state to throw their critics in prison as being seditious. People like to say that well, social media has changed everything. In fact, we’ve simply returned to a situation more like what we had prior to centralized mass media, where rumors and panics and “disinformation” originating in the common people (and often blamed on foreigners) frequently caused all kinds of dramatic events and political upsets.

The very idea of an “information war” that can be won only by silencing your adversary is an attack on democracy.

> videos of $ALLY/SELF committing them that come from reputable source or that can be verified should not be censored

There is no world where the authority delegated to protect us from propaganda isn’t going to censor these. It’s well and good to posit the idea that untruth shouldn’t be allowed but by giving someone the authority to arbitrate what is reputable and true you’ve already ceded the entire idea of self-governance.

[Gupie]

That sounds very dogmatic to me, "you cannot", "they are necessary", "you just have to", "an attack on democracy". You are right to be worried about attacks on democracy, with the refusal to Trump at al to accept the result of last year's election. But that is not down to censorship.

[Amezarak]

> That sounds very dogmatic to me, "you cannot", "they are necessary", "you just have to", "an attack on democracy".

There is no dogmatism necessary, it's a logical proposition. If people are not allowed to decide for themselves what is true, they are not self-governed. Unfortunately, we can see from the ample historical record that people will frequently believe things that aren't true, or lack context, and will decide on courses of actions that appear to be foolish, reckless, or wicked. But the reason we live in a democratic society is because we decided this was better than oligarchs or monarchs choosing for us, even if a given set of oligarchs or monarchs may have been better and wiser. And we also have an ample historical record showing us that governments and other power-systems, given the power, will censor true things as well as false ones for various reasons, usually self-interested, but not always in a direct sense.

You can argue that some kind of managerial technocracy with arbiters of truth is a better system of government, but it isn't really a democratic one, in the usual sense. Perhaps in the "you are allowed to choose from these pre-approved opinions, held by the earl and the duke, respectively" sense.

> with the refusal to Trump at al to accept the result of last year's election. But that is not down to censorship.

I am personally more worried about CIA directors torturing people, murdering people, spying on the Senate, and leading the attacks on democratically elected officials as a threat to democracy than this, which is not a new problem at all in America. But even in the latter case, censorship certainly played a major role: the Biden laptop story was censored because intelligence agencies said it was the sort of thing the Russians might do (not that they had any evidence they did it - but because they would have done it if they could), and this certainly aggravated the sense of aggrievement and persecution held by these people, even though I personally doubt the "revelation" that Hunter got jobs because of who his dad was and had to pay his dad some of the money would have swayed anyone, considering how common it is in DC.

[DocTomoe]

And somehow, because you feel uneasy with Russian propaganda, you feel entitled to deny my right to consume and analyse it?

[Gupie]

I feel a democratically elected government it entitled to deny your right to consume such propaganda, although I don't understand why you would want to.

[DocTomoe]

I feel that there are things that democratically elected governments is not entitled to do, like denying my basic human rights, which include my right to inform myself about world affairs from sources that do not align with said government's desired narrative, especially so when such methods could lead to a population making democratic decisions on falsified or misleading information. Manufactured consent is just as dangerous as allegedly fake news from outside actors.

[Gupie]

Yes but if the autocrats win you will have no rights period.

[Markoff]

You mean like democratically elected Hitler's Nazi party government?

[deepsun]

I'd agree with you if I didn't see first-hand how propaganda starts wars. And yes, reasonable censorship helps, e.g. YouTube blocking RT is very much positive for the whole world.

[Amezarak]

Propaganda has always been a problem and democracies and led to wars. What is different now? Also, in this particular case, what war are we stopping by banning Americans or Europeans from seeing Russian propaganda? It looks to me like that ship has sailed.

In fact, if anything, it appears to be we’ve opened the floodgates to pro-Ukrainian propaganda, as if being anti-Russian invasion means we must therefore accept all things pro-Ukraine. As with the Ghost of Kiev, people have even said even if it’s not true, we should still believe it. Since this type of propaganda has encouraged the arming of Ukraine by the west and increasing escalations, it seems like it is more likely to increase the scale, scope, and length of the war. Should we ban Ukrainian propaganda?