Irony
Trump is a maniac, but I support him 100% in his defence of those purged from social media and their right to free speech. Now this illustrates perfectly why censorship is so bad.
Even idiots come out with profound things at times. To just blanket ban them will mean important content is not shared anymore. And media and the internet show a trend of being more controlled, not becoming more open.
I argue against censorship of information, and me supporting Trump proves the point that idiots should not be silenced as you will agree with them at times.
Irony.
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
7 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.What FB did was not censorship. They are a private company and can choose who is allowed to post.
Nor was it denying these folks free speech. They have their own sites / blogs / radio programs. They are free to say all sorts of heinous things on their own dime, but no one is obligated to amplify it for them and there's no reason society can't decide to threaten them with withdrawal of various forms of social reciprocity. That's what you do to asshats.
This is especially so when you understand the FB users are not FB's customer's, they are FB's product. All that has happened here is that Zuck realized, belatedly and imperfectly, that allowing certain products into the product lineup to his real customers (advertisers) was undermining the viability of his entire platform.
By your logic, FB should not shut down Russian bot / troll accounts or other forms of engagement designed to manipulate elections. But companies have the right to fire customers, too. I've done it many times. Unreasonably demanding customers can and should be sent packing. So should customers who pay slow or not at all. So should customers who, by associating with, you corrupt your own reputation and moral standing.
When you think about it this all falls under the umbrella of the most often overlooked human freedom: the freedom of association.
mordant
Level 8
May 5, 2019
0
@powder It's hardly a "reds under the bed" scare, it's quite well quantified and substantiated. In any case, it would not kill FB to build working detectors for bots regardless of ideology or methodology or nationality, and/or to add more personnel to follow up on same. It would not kill them to protect user privacy and data rather than sell it to the highest bidder.
Under Twitter's TOS Trump himself should be banned. The only reason is deference to him as president which won't go on much longer. Hate speech has no place in a public forum and their banning reflects this. I would like to say I am not a user of FB or Twitter or any other online service like them. I encourage others to boycott services that collect all your online data and use it for marketing.
Theresa_N
Level 8
May 5, 2019
1
Exhorting people to do murder is illegal.
Think it over!
chazwin
Level 6
May 5, 2019
1
no opinion was ever changed through censorship
MsDemeanour
Level 8
May 5, 2019
1
@ToolGuy well that stuff is already illegal
@ToolGuy I'm more concerned for the increasing censorship of journalists and whistleblowers
@ToolGuy I'm completely lost now
@ToolGuy If Trump called for people to harm others then yes he or anyone else should be convicted of inciting hate speech. It is illegal in my country. Don't know about yours. I know Americans go on about 'free speech' but there is no such thing. There are laws against hates peech and slander etc.
@ToolGuy oh yes I see now. It's pretty scary that the president has impunity. I badly want my own country to become a republic but I really don't want to adopt the american system. Anyway it's my bedtime and I'm nodding off, so I'll leave you to your debate.
Freedom of speech is the fundamental foundation of democracy. I do not care if you are proposing the reintroduction of slavery, the reintroduction of burning witches, the ending of capital punishment or the abolition of personal property - I will listen to your argument ... and I have heard lots of crap over the years. If I agree I may speak to support you - and if I disagree I may speak against you - most likely I will keep my own counsel.
There is a move across UK Universities to 'no platform' certain people with controversial views. A university should hold the finest minds in the country, capable of dissecting ideas and highlighting failures in a proposed argument. I am deeply saddened that these youthful minds are already closed to open thought and criticism
ShadowAmicus
Level 8
May 5, 2019
0
@ToolGuy 'cognitive science' as in what neurobiology? I don't understand what you mean. I can entertain a variety of contradictory thoughts and after analysis and research can draw a conclusion, rejecting other alternatives. That is what I'd consider cognitive thinking.
@ToolGuy Jesus no wonder people say such garbage. Still, I think we modify our behaviour and speech to fit in with society
@ToolGuy but I am going to check out Lakoff. I see he is on youtube
Facebook, like any social media provider (indeed, like Agnostic.com), is a private corporation. They have the right to restrict users who violate the terms of service. They also have the right to change the terms of service. All users agree to these terms when they sign up.
Is fake news (I mean actually fake news, not what Trump calls "fake news", which is what he calls the real news) "important content", Powder? Are people who post malicious content "profound"? Because that's who we're talking about here. And for the record, censorship is a government activity. Facebook et. al. are not the government. They have the right to choose who to allow on their websites. If a customer in your business is disruptive, you have the right to ban them. They have the right to ban disruptive content.
Paul4747
Level 8
May 5, 2019
3
@powder Agnostic.com and FB have no obligation to provide anyone with a platform. The danger comes when the establishment put pressure on them to restrict criticism of themselves and the current regime.
But what is a fact is that any platform which entertains those wishing to murder becomes, and is exhorting others to do so is in danger of legal action against themselves.
I agree that some of their clips or content should be banned, but this movement to ban people entirely is dangerous.
There is no bottom to what can be forbidden next. Unless there's the threat of violence, slander or false impersonation, I'm for free speech. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be be allowed.
Athena
Level 8
May 5, 2019
3
There are limit's to free speech. Can't yell shark on a beach, can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't yell bomb in an airport and for good reason, some people just react when they hear someone yell and start to run, causing panic possibly injury. So the one who yelled, laughing at people running away, possibly getting hurt, the one who yelled is responsible. A pastor or priest or whatever, on a sidewalk in a city ranting about homosexuality, gets people riled up (incitement to riot) then they act on impulse, because of what they heard, that person of the cloth is responsible. These types of people should be punished for the harm the caused.
I believe this is understood. We are talking about people being banned from social media.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.