What do you think should not be given a platform?

Gimme A Pound

There's no such thing as free speech. This isn't my opinion - it's a fact. You can't publish or broadcast absolutely anything you want, and you never could. Even the oft cited U.S. First Amendment has a bunch of exceptions attached to it.

Freedom of speech is more of an accurate term than free speech, as it implies limits. It applies to the state though, not every organisation. In this country, you don't get sent to prison for expressing your views - and rightly so. Private companies can censor you if they want, without breaching the right to freedom of speech - although I don't agree with monopolies like Facebook, Twitter and Google doing so when it's just a view that's not liberal. Ditto the press. Might not be state run but has a duty to report the truth. And police intervention in the UK regarding tweets is just a whole load of crazy.

But not everything should be given a platform. In my opinion this applies to certain anti vaccination folks. I'm not talking about people asking questions, expressing concerns. But those folk who cite some guy/girl on Facebook as valid research, and because their position is so weak they get defensive and angry, and the absolute vileness of the things they say to and about parents of children who are ill and vaccinated (or not vaccinated). These people should be banned. Not just for being nasty ***** but for the dangerous misinformation they are spreading in relation to a life/death public health matter, and endangering their children. Babies of pre vaccine age shouldn't be at risk because of stupidity and pigheadedness.

Plumbthedepths

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote:

But not everything should be given a platform. In my opinion this applies to certain anti vaccination folks. I'm not talking about people asking questions, expressing concerns. But those folk who cite some guy/girl on Facebook as valid research, and because their position is so weak they get defensive and angry, and the absolute vileness of the things they say to and about parents of children who are ill and vaccinated (or not vaccinated). These people should be banned. Not just for being nasty ***** but for the dangerous misinformation they are spreading in relation to a life/death public health matter, and endangering their children. Babies of pre vaccine age shouldn't be at risk because of stupidity and pigheadedness.

So basically you want the views of others banned if you believe they are wrong?

Gimme A Pound

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So basically you want the views of others banned if you believe they are wrong?

"So basically" you didn't read the post.

To add, people who say "So what you're saying is" in response to someone who didn't say that at all, should be banned.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

There's no such thing as free speech. This isn't my opinion - it's a fact. You can't publish or broadcast absolutely anything you want, and you never could. Even the oft cited U.S. First Amendment has a bunch of exceptions attached to it.

Freedom of speech is more of an accurate term than free speech, as it implies limits. It applies to the state though, not every organisation. In this country, you don't get sent to prison for expressing your views - and rightly so. Private companies can censor you if they want, without breaching the right to freedom of speech - although I don't agree with monopolies like Facebook, Twitter and Google doing so when it's just a view that's not liberal. Ditto the press. Might not be state run but has a duty to report the truth. And police intervention in the UK regarding tweets is just a whole load of crazy.

But not everything should be given a platform. In my opinion this applies to certain anti vaccination folks. I'm not talking about people asking questions, expressing concerns. But those folk who cite some guy/girl on Facebook as valid research, and because their position is so weak they get defensive and angry, and the absolute vileness of the things they say to and about parents of children who are ill and vaccinated (or not vaccinated). These people should be banned. Not just for being nasty ***** but for the dangerous misinformation they are spreading in relation to a life/death public health matter, and endangering their children. Babies of pre vaccine age shouldn't be at risk because of stupidity and pigheadedness.

Banned from where?

Plumbthedepths

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote:

"So basically" you didn't read the post.

I did read your post, your response confirms what I said.

Plumbthedepths

Lance Screeching Battery wrote:

Banned from where?

I can only assume Earth.

greencap

So ... ban incitement of stupidity?

Probably doable, tricky though.

Signore Fancy Pants

Male feminists.

Traveller apologists.

Conspiracy theorists.

Politicans.

Duck face "influencers".

Non-duck face "influencers".

People who don't like Topic bars.

People who disagree with me.

Anyone born after 1999.

Gimme A Pound

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I did read your post, your response confirms what I said.

And yet I said: I don't believe in monopolies banning people for different opinions to liberal ones, or the press not telling the truth, or the police getting involved regarding tweets, or people simply asking questions/expressing concerns about vaccines... just that not everything should be given a platform (obviously - I mean e.g. beheadings) and the one thing - I literally only said one thing - I believe should not be given a platform is misinformation regarding an important health issue affecting children, and the vile harassment that often accompanies it.

Soooooooo... I'm just not seeing where you have grounds to say to me "So basically you want the views of others banned if you believe they are wrong?"

Plumbthedepths

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote:

Soooooooo... I'm just not seeing where you have grounds to say to me "So basically you want the views of others banned if you believe they are wrong?"

Of course you don't. ;-)

Gimme A Pound

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Of course you don't. ;-)

Indeed I don't. And I outlined clearly above. A short sentence and winky face doesn't change that. Perhaps clarify further how you have evidence that I "want the views of others banned if I believe they are wrong", cozzzzz there are loads of views I believe are wrong yet I don't think those who hold them should be banned.

I suspect you are an anti vaccine person - don't take it personally if so. I just don't want pre vaccinated children to be at risk, or a rise in preventable illnesses.

Plumbthedepths

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote:

I suspect you are an anti vaccine person - don't take it personally if so. I just don't want pre vaccinated children to be at risk, or a rise in preventable illnesses.

Suspect what you want although I understand the tactic.I just take issue with those who wish to silence the views or beliefs of others.

padd b1975

Anyone who tells me how to live my life but earns less than me.

BattleCorp

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

But not everything should be given a platform. .

I agree that not everything should be given a platform.

But how do you decide what gets a platform and what doesn't? That's an impossible task to do fairly.

What normally happens is that those in power ban anything they don't like. That's a dangerous road to go down.

Gimme A Pound

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I just take issue with those who wish to silence the views or beliefs of others.

I agree. It's not just views or beliefs though is it - it's putting children's health at risk. It goes way way beyond just expressing views/beliefs.

So yeah, I'm not guilty of what you accused me of without evidence.

Outlaw Pete

Nobody should be banned / silenced from saying anything they want as long as it isn't a call for violence.

If private companies want to ban certain views being expressed, fine, within reason.

Many are hiding behind that so they can push certain political viewpoints though.

riffmongous

The thing about Google, twitter, Facebook, boards, reddit etc is people are free to go start up there own one if they want, unlike State suppression of speech. None of these really work though, they just become toxic pits.

Mickeroo

"Be excellent to each other"

If it contradicts the above mantra on which our society should be based then it shouldn't be given a platform.

Gimme A Pound

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nobody should be banned / silenced from saying anything they want as long as it isn't a call for violence.

What about verbal abuse though? What about misinformation?

I am not talking about views that are contrary to the over arching narrative. Personally I welcome those hugely.

BattleCorp

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

What about verbal abuse though? What about misinformation?

I am not talking about views that are contrary to the over arching narrative. Personally I welcome those hugely.

Who decides what constitutes verbal abuse? If I say to Donald Trump that he is doing a 'sh1te job', does that constitute verbal abuse?

p1akuw47h5r3it

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

What about verbal abuse though? What about misinformation?

I am not talking about views that are contrary to the over arching narrative. Personally I welcome those hugely.

If you ban misinformation you'll essentially be banning 90% of the media.

BattleCorp

DanDan6592 wrote: »

If you ban misinformation you'll essentially be banning 90% of the media.

And 100% of political parties.

Fr_Dougal

Agree with the point about the Topic bars.

Plumbthedepths

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote:

I suspect you are an anti vaccine person

Can you explain the reasoning behind this accusation and it's purpose?

hatrickpatrick

Nothing at all, as far as I'm concerned. No-platforming is a cancer on democracy and on internet freedom.

Ten of Swords

Fair City should not be given a platform...

Any platform...

Ever

Spleerbun

DanDan6592 wrote: »

If you ban misinformation you'll essentially be banning 90% of the media.

Would that be so bad I wonder?

super_furry

Donkey Kong. He just smashes them all down as soon as the level starts anyway.

Ten of Swords

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

people who say "So what you're saying is" in response to someone who didn't say that at all, should be banned.

Ah, the Cathy Newman Lobster defence. Good call!

Robsweezie

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

"So basically" you didn't read the post.

To add, people who say "So what you're saying is" in response to someone who didn't say that at all, should be banned.

cathy newman is that poster's spirit animal.

Outlaw Pete

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

What about verbal abuse though?

Like I said, it's fine to action for certain stuff like that, especially anywhere that wants healthy debate. Nightmare to moderate it on the likes of Twitter though I'd imagine. Smaller platforms like Boards though and I absolutely think it's a necessity to action it.

The issue on Boards though is that you have certain mods who will one minute two foot tackle the mildest of posts which they feel crosses the ad hominem line and then the next turn a blind eye to another post which is ten times worse. Seen some mods post comments which they themselves wouldn't allow and thank many of 'em too.

Inconsistency is a huge issue on this platform and larger afield too. Differing political and societal views more often than not are why it occurs. Boards likes to posture as if it wants healthy debate above all else, where all parties involved in discussions will be held to the same standard of posting, but the days of that being anywhere close to the truth are long since past.

Same goes for Twitter. Their actions betray their supposed ethos.

What about misinformation?

Trust me, it annoys the arse off me, but certainly don't think someone should be banned for it.

As far as I'm concerned, it should be up to the userbase to either challenge what's posted and debate whether or not it is correct or not. Mods are human and can be as wrongheaded as the rest of us.

Creol1

I wish the national media would stop giving space to the issue of politicians claiming to support house-building but opposing it in their constituency.

I agree it's a disgrace, but giving them coverage is only going to boost them in the eyes of their constituents!

kowloon

padd b1975 wrote: »

Anyone who tells me how to live my life but earns less than me.

But you're fine with wealthier people doing it?

RobbingBandit

Vegan agenda, **** off with your imported food flown in from thousands of miles away you counterintuitive nonsensical fascists.

Gimme A Pound

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Can you explain the reasoning behind this accusation and it's purpose?

Because of your bizarre hostility towards my view, and stating I said something which I didn't say. The one thing (only one) I said I believed should not be given a platform is misinformation/harassment when it comes to childhood vaccinations - nothing else, yet you said "So basically you want the views of others banned if you believe they are wrong?", "I can only assume Earth" when someone asked where I think this should be banned from (obviously from being published - where else would I mean), "Of course you don't. ;-)" when I said, backing myself up, that I don't support censorship of anyone whom I believe is wrong (and I don't just believe people who spread misinformation about childhood vaccinations are wrong - they objectively ARE wrong).

So on the basis of the above, I - logically - told you I suspected you are an anti vaccines person. I didn't say you are one, I said I suspect you are one, which I did - and not to take it personally if so. You on the other hand told me what I think, despite me making it clear I don't. How come it's ok for you to tell someone what they think, but not for them to tell you what they suspect what you think?

Gimme A Pound

BattleCorp wrote: »

Who decides what constitutes verbal abuse? If I say to Donald Trump that he is doing a 'sh1te job', does that constitute verbal abuse?

Obviously not. That whole thing of "who decides", "where do you draw the line" etc could be said about anything. Sustained verbal abuse and harassment and intimidatory behaviour towards an individual (not the president of the USA who has a Secret Service team and millions of supporters on the flipside) in the form of messages - should this be given a platform?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nothing at all, as far as I'm concerned. No-platforming is a cancer on democracy and on internet freedom.

Not misinformation that's potentially dangerous and it appears is spreading and leading to an increase in preventable illnesses? Not sustained verbal abuse and harassment like above? Not advocating violence? Child abuse?

Of course there are things that shouldn't be given a platform.

When it comes to opinions or statements based on fact - even if not very palatable - that's different. The censorship of those is endorsed by some, and I certainly don't agree with that, but this thing of absolutely nothing whatsoever should be refused a platform... it's pretty disingenuous, and stubborn.

On this thread there are also people just listing people and views they don't like - that's just as useless.

How come it's always so hard to have a conversation about this topic?

Plumbthedepths

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote:

Because of your bizarre hostility towards my view, and stating I said something which I didn't say. The one thing (only one) I said I believed should not be given a platform is misinformation/harassment when it comes to childhood vaccinations - nothing else, yet you said "So basically you want the views of others banned if you believe they are wrong?", "I can only assume Earth" when someone asked where I think this should be banned from (obviously from being published - where else would I mean), "Of course you don't. ;-)" when I said, backing myself up, that I don't support censorship of anyone whom I believe is wrong (and I don't just believe people who spread misinformation about childhood vaccinations are wrong - they objectively ARE wrong).

You think someone disagreeing with banning opposing views is hostile? Now that's bizarre.

Gimme A Pound

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You think someone disagreeing with banning opposing views is hostile? Now that's bizarre.

But that's not what I said - I disagree with being told I said something which I didn't. What is your problem?

biko

Yay, another "something that should be free.............................but..."

Either you believe your worst enemy should be allowed to speak, or you don't really believe in freedom of speech.

Gimme A Pound

biko wrote: »

Yay, another "something that should be free.............................but..."

Who said that and what are the other threads? (Oh wait, it's biko - lack of reply imminent).

Gimme A Pound

biko wrote: »

Either you believe your worst enemy should be allowed to speak, or you don't really believe in freedom of speech.

This is such glib bollox - ok with kids being verbally bullied are you? I mean it's "freedom of speech"?

Oh wait, even the US first amendment has a bunch of exceptions attached to it. Freedom of speech isn't absolute - never was. That's why it's not called free speech and is called freedom of speech instead. Actually there was way more censorship in the past.

Why is there always such dishonesty and distortion of what people say on this topic?

I don't think opinions or supported facts should be censored at all.

I do think dangerous lies and systematic harassment should be.

touts

If you can't argue against them and have to ban them to win in the short term then in reality they are winning in the long term.

Gimme A Pound

touts wrote: »

If you can't argue against them and have to ban them to win in the short term then in reality they are winning in the long term.

Absolutely when children's health/lives aren't at risk.

BBFAN

Anyone who claims that sexual attraction towards children is a preference should be banned from everywhere for life.

Gimme A Pound

BBFAN wrote: »

Anyone who claims that sexual attraction towards children is a preference should be banned from everywhere for life.

Definitely don't agree there. It's just an opinion and may not be incorrect. If someone feels attraction to children and obviously doesn't go near children, and gets treatment, well all they've done is think things.

Pretty Polky

Me after I fell off a pair years ago in the way into the off licence.
Id have gotten over it if it was after consumption but limping in was not one of my finest moments in life.

Gimme A Pound

Pretty Polky wrote: »

Me after I fell off a pair years ago in the way into the off licence.
Id have gotten over it if it was after consumption but limping in was not one of my finest moments in life.

Sprained my ankle in a nightclub. :mad:

biko

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

Oh wait, even the first amendment has a bunch of exceptions attached to it. Freedom of speech isn't absolute - never was.

That's not what the first amendment is about.

The First Amendment of the Constitution Act 1939 amended the Constitution of Ireland to extend the constitutional definition of "time of war" to include a period during which a war occurs without the state itself being a direct participant.

BBFAN

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

Definitely don't agree there. It's just an opinion and may not be incorrect. If someone feels attraction to children and obviously doesn't go near children, and gets treatment, well all they've done is think things.

This is exactly what I mean. Anyone trying to make out it's normal to be attracted to children does not need a platform EVER EVER EVER.

This is how these guys start rings around the world where they share this crap.

By trying to justify themselves.

You need a serious look at yourself.

Gimme A Pound

BBFAN wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean. Anyone trying to make out it's normal to be attracted to children does not need a platform EVER EVER EVER.

This is how these guys start rings around the world where they share this crap.

By trying to justify themselves.

You need a serious look at yourself.

No, YOU and all the other distorters of what people say need a serious look at YOURselves.

If a person has those feelings involuntarily, what crime have they committed? It only becomes a crime if they touch a child or download child pornography. What they should be doing once they have such feelings is seeking treatment and keeping as far away from children as possible. But you left that bit out.

I don't know whether fancying children is an orientation or not. Certainly can't state categorically that it isn't, but that doesn't in any way mean I think it's ok or normal - what with me saying they should seek treatment and all. Chemical castration if needs be.

I agree, those who say it's normal should not be given a platform.

Gimme A Pound

biko wrote: »

That's not what the first amendment is about.

Aw... you couldn't respond to my questions.