Right Wing Grifters

alastair

KyussB wrote: »

You're wrong:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and corporations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows.
--Academic American Encyclopedia

Junkyard Tom

KyussB wrote: »

then the idea of choice is lie

When has the mainstream media ever offered the general public choice? One of the MSM's principle functions is manipulation of the public consciousness.

How else do we accept a system that funnels enormous wealth/power to a tiny fraction of the population at the expense of the vast majority?

KyussB

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

When has the mainstream media ever offered the general public choice? One of the MSM's principle functions is manipulation of the public consciousness.

How else do we accept a system that funnels enormous wealth/power to a tiny fraction of the population at the expense of the vast majority?

I agree about the MSM - but the MSM have never been able to censor the 'town square' - the place where the public discuss among themselves - that's what's happening now on online social media.

The same narrowing of narrative that happens in MSM - is now being rolled out online, on social media - on the digital equivlent of the 'town square'.

People don't realize this - because they think it's just being deployed against the far-right - but it's not, there is a big acceleration in the culling of left-leaning sources, that are nowhere near as extreme as the right-wing stuff that's getting censored.

Tony EH

All private institutions can censor as they please. They are not free speech organisations, unless they explicitly state they are such, and it's the height of stupidity to think otherwise and then whine about it when you find out they're not. These institutions, and that includes the likes of Twitter and YouTube, are privately run, for profit, organisations with rules and if you run afoul of those rules you'll get sanctioned.

This isn't difficult to understand.

KyussB

Read what has been said. These institutions aren't 'just any other platform' - they are monolithic institutions, who between them dominate the online 'town square', and have carved it up as an oligopoly between them - they have privatized what was previously the public 'town square'.

It's both an anti-trust issue, and a political censorship issue. When an oligopoly forms in a business market, you don't just say "well, they're not doing anything illegal, suck it up!", when they use their dominant position to manipulate the market - you go after them and break up their businesses.

With an effective oligopoly on the digital 'town square', it's the same situation - when they can abuse their dominant position to implement widescale political censorship, effectively removing it from the digital 'town square' - it's a combined anti-trust/political-censorship issue.

The public needs guaranteed access to the 'town square' - and if this industry wants to dominate and thus privatize the digital town square - then they need to be forced to guarantee public access, and they need to be held accountable and be able to be sued for political censorship.

Tony EH

They don't constitute a "town square" at all. They exist to make money. They are a private, for profit, organisations, with their own T&C's written by their legal teams and enforced by the organisations.

They are only a "town square" in your head.

alastair

I’m curious. What were supposed to be the ‘town squares’ before social media?

KyussB

Tony EH wrote: »

They don't constitute a "town square" at all. They exist to make money. They are a private, for profit, organisations, with their own T&C's written by their legal teams and enforced by the organisations.

They are only a "town square" in your head.

By virtue of their scale and the share of online public discourse they have control over - they very much are the equivalent of the digital 'town square', privatized and divided up between them.

KyussB

alastair wrote: »

I’m curious. What were supposed to be the ‘town squares’ before social media?

Gee I don't know, what would the real world equivalent of a digital 'town square' be? Tough one...

Realt Dearg Sec

alastair wrote: »

I’m curious. What were supposed to be the ‘town squares’ before social media?

Uh, dude...

Birneybau

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Uh, dude...

Uh dude...

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

By virtue of their scale and the share of online public discourse they have control over - they very much are the equivalent of the digital 'town square', privatized and divided up between them.

But, this is nonsense K. It doesn't make any sense. Their scale doesn't matter. Their amount of users doesn't matter.

The fact is they are still privately run and owned organisations that primarily exist to make money. And, into the bargain, that money is from advertising which has another whole level of responsibilities that come with it.

It doesn't matter how anybody frames it, whether they wish to call them "town squares", "discussion platforms", or whatever, they are still organisations with their own terms and conditions that you must observe if you are to use their facilities.

sabat

KyussB wrote: »

By virtue of their scale and the share of online public discourse they have control over - they very much are the equivalent of the digital 'town square', privatized and divided up between them.

Do a search of the words "hate speech" together with the names of the major social media companies incorporated here-google/youtube, facebook and twitter-then compare their inhouse rules with the legislation being introduced into our statute books. The similarity is uncanny, especially when you consider how entrenched those companies have become into Ireland-monetarily, politically and even into our physical space itself. What's also noteworthy are the donations made by these companies to NGOs, ostensibly for PR/charitable purposes, but they always seem to go to "rainbow" organisations like LGB.., environmental, immigrants etc.

KyussB

Tony EH wrote: »

But, this is nonsense K. It doesn't make any sense. Their scale doesn't matter. Their amount of users doesn't matter.

The fact is they are still privately run and owned organisations that primarily exist to make money. And, into the bargain, that money is from advertising which has another whole level of responsibilities that come with it.

It doesn't matter how anybody frames it, whether they wish to call them "town squares", "discussion platforms", or whatever, they are still organisations with their own terms and conditions that you must observe if you are to use their facilities.

You disagree with the concept of a digital 'town square', labelling it nonsense - but you don't explain how it's supposed to be nonsense - your second paragraph only explains ownership and motivation - and your third paragraph only explains that they apply rules.

It's a valid concept/analogy - and when you consider that an extremely disproportionate amount of online public discussion happens on a small number of major social media sites - it's a valid analogy to say that these platforms each make up a bit of the digital 'town square', and that together they wield disproportionate influence over it.

It doesn't matter what their motivations are or how they run their businesses, whether it be for money, be pro-free-speech or pro-censorship, nor whether they are public or private - the fact that they hold a significant share of online public discourse - means they hold on to a bit of the digital 'town square'.

It'd be hard to discuss this further without that concept being taken as valid.

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

You disagree with the concept of a digital 'town square', labelling it nonsense - but you don't explain how it's supposed to be nonsense - your second paragraph only explains ownership and motivation - and your third paragraph only explains that they apply rules.

It's a valid concept/analogy - and when you consider that an extremely disproportionate amount of online public discussion happens on a small number of major social media sites - it's a valid analogy to say that these platforms each make up a bit of the digital 'town square', and that together they wield disproportionate influence over it.

It doesn't matter what their motivations are or how they run their businesses, whether it be for money, be pro-free-speech or pro-censorship, nor whether they are public or private - the fact that they hold a significant share of online public discourse - means they hold on to a bit of the digital 'town square'.

It'd be hard to discuss this further without that concept being taken as valid.

It's a concept in your head only. It doesn't exist where Twitter or YouTube or any number of fora are concerned. They do not operate according to your rules. They operate according to their OWN rules that they have written down and enforce. And, what's more, they are perfectly entitled, as privately owned entities, to do so.

No amount of hypothetical musing about "town squares" is going to change that.

The fact that you don't personally like that is meaningless because, at the end of the day, they still have the law in their court. These privately created, owned, and operated companies offer a service to users who must observe that company's written terms and conditions in order to use that service.

It's a very straightforward concept and one that will trump your "town square" every single time.

I'm not on Twitter myself. It's a clusterfuck of morons and one of the absolute worst facilities for conversing or having a discussion and nearly everything ends up looking like a shouting match between twats. But I am under no illusion that if I was to ever bother setting up an account there, that I would be subject to following their rules, just like everybody else and that it isn't a space for me to say what I damn well please.

KyussB

I mean if you google it, it's a widespead concept:
www.google.com/search?q=twitter+town+square

It doesn't matter what rules these platforms have - simply by having a significant share of online public discourse, they hold on to a bit of the digital 'town square'.

We seem to be talking past each other so I'll leave it at that.

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

I mean if you google it, it's a widespead concept:
www.google.com/search?q=twitter+town+square

It doesn't matter what rules these platforms have - simply by having a significant share of online public discourse, they hold on to a bit of the digital 'town square'.

We seem to be talking past each other so I'll leave it at that.

Your concept doesn't matter because it doesn't survive contact with reality and that reality is that the likes of Twitter are privately own enterprises that can lay down its own rules however it likes and then ask the users of its service to follow those rules in order to use it.

You may personally not like that, but that is the way it is and they are perfectly within the right to do that.

KyussB

Ok, I'll give it another try: You're mixing up a discussion about morality with one about legality.

I don't give a toss what Twitter can legally do - I'm discussing a moral issue, and the digital 'town square' concept, is a valid one for making moral judgements here.

I also say in my posts, that the moral concept I'm discussing should be protected - the public should be guaranteed access to the digital 'town square', and companies with a disproportionate share of online discussion, should have a legal obligation to uphold these principles - and people should be able to sue them for political censorship.

In other words - I'm saying the law should be changed (and I've expresed a moral framework to justify that) - so saying "the law currently says 'x'" to retort against that, doesn't make sense - because it's a discussion of a moral concept and how I think the law should be.

osarusan

Where the town square analogy falls down a bit is that the town square didn't exist before FB, Twitter etc came along, they built it, or at least built their own, and made it so attractive that people migrated there from other platforms.

The fundamental difference for me is that they are private companies, and this means two things. Firstly, they are out to make a profit, and just as a pub has the right to throw a rowdy drunk off the premises for annoying the other customers (from which they make their money), so they have that right to do the same online.

The second is that they too are subject to the law, so it's skewed to say that they should be forced to accommodate certain comments, even if that accommodation could put them in legal trouble.

But there is definitely an issue with a few online behemoths controlling the space in which so much online discourse happens, and thus having so much power over the way in which that discourse is restricted or shaped.

alastair

KyussB wrote: »

Gee I don't know, what would the real world equivalent of a digital 'town square' be? Tough one...

My memory stretches back well before social media, and I don’t recall there ever being a town square used as a discussion forum.

alastair

sabat wrote: »

Do a search of the words "hate speech" together with the names of the major social media companies incorporated here-google/youtube, facebook and twitter-then compare their inhouse rules with the legislation being introduced into our statute books. The similarity is uncanny, especially when you consider how entrenched those companies have become into Ireland-monetarily, politically and even into our physical space itself. What's also noteworthy are the donations made by these companies to NGOs, ostensibly for PR/charitable purposes, but they always seem to go to "rainbow" organisations like LGB.., environmental, immigrants etc.

The notion that social media platforms have created the concept of hate speech is rather undermined by the chronology of hate speech legislation, including our own. Tim Berners-Lee was still plugging away in CERN when it was drafted, and social media was at least a decade away.

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

Ok, I'll give it another try: You're mixing up a discussion about morality with one about legality.

I don't give a toss what Twitter can legally do - I'm discussing a moral issue, and the digital 'town square' concept, is a valid one for making moral judgements here.

I also say in my posts, that the moral concept I'm discussing should be protected - the public should be guaranteed access to the digital 'town square', and companies with a disproportionate share of online discussion, should have a legal obligation to uphold these principles - and people should be able to sue them for political censorship.

In other words - I'm saying the law should be changed (and I've expresed a moral framework to justify that) - so saying "the law currently says 'x'" to retort against that, doesn't make sense - because it's a discussion of a moral concept and how I think the law should be.

The legality is the only thing that matters here. You're problem is that the concept you have fails the moment it hits the reality of what we're talking about.

The issue is that your application of the "Town Square" concept falls down the moment it touches the real world situation.

You can state that the "law should be changed" all you wish, but that isn't going to happen any time soon. Twitter, YouTube, Boards, etc are all privately owned entities that can draw up their own rules and guidelines whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.

The free-for-all you are after probably doesn't even exist anywhere. Even 4chan, the arsehole of the internet, has rules that you must follow if you post there.

KyussB

The concept doesn't fail, because it's a moral one which can be validly applied to analyze and criticize the current legal and real world situation. It's like you think 'might makes right' or something...

Nobody called for a free for all - you know full well I'm focused on political censorship.

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

The concept doesn't fail, because it's a moral one which can be validly applied to analyze and criticize the current legal and real world situation. It's like you think 'might makes right' or something...

Nobody called for a free for all - you know full well I'm focused on political censorship.

It fails completely. It doesn't survive contact with reality. As a concept it's fine. But as you are trying to apply it to the real world, it's a non-starter. Private enterprises are free to set up their own rules and regulations and they are also free to enforce those rules and regulations upon users who wish to avail of their services.

The user to whom that seems unappealing is free to seek a different service elsewhere.

This isn't going to change.

KyussB

osarusan wrote: »

Where the town square analogy falls down a bit is that the town square didn't exist before FB, Twitter etc came along, they built it, or at least built their own, and made it so attractive that people migrated there from other platforms.

The fundamental difference for me is that they are private companies, and this means two things. Firstly, they are out to make a profit, and just as a pub has the right to throw a rowdy drunk off the premises for annoying the other customers (from which they make their money), so they have that right to do the same online.

The second is that they too are subject to the law, so it's skewed to say that they should be forced to accommodate certain comments, even if that accommodation could put them in legal trouble.

But there is definitely an issue with a few online behemoths controlling the space in which so much online discourse happens, and thus having so much power over the way in which that discourse is restricted or shaped.

Glad we agree in the last paragraph at least

It's not a perfect analogy, for sure - but who built it, how they drew the public there, their legal status (public vs private), their motivation (profit), etc. - none of that detracts from the analogy, as these are still the places the lions share of the public go, to discuss things.

That the law targetting private institutions, putting restrictions on what can be discussed in this digital 'town square', is a censorship problem in its own right, too - and by letting the law encroach on providers like this, we've allowed an erosion of rights for discussion among people, too.

KyussB

Tony EH wrote: »

It fails completely. It doesn't survive contact with reality. As a concept it's fine. But as you are trying to apply it to the real world, it's a non-starter. Private enterprises are free to set up their own rules and regulations and they are also free to enforce those rules and regulations upon users who wish to avail of their services.

The user to whom that seems unappealing is free to seek a different service elsewhere.

This isn't going to change.

Do you think legislaters/politicians writing up laws, look at the current laws, see how the current law conflicts with the reforms they're writing up, and go "that doesn't survive contact with reality" - then just chuck the new laws/reforms out?

No, because that would be fucking stupid.

The law as it stands is not fixed and unreformable - it does not represent 'reality', as if it's an immovable set of fixed physical laws - it's reformable/changeable at any time.

Can you stop just redundantly reciting the current law as if it's unchangeable, in response to an argument about reforming the law? It makes no sense, and I'd assume you're smart enough to see that logical flaw...

sabat

Tony EH wrote: »

Private enterprises are free to set up their own rules and regulations and they are also free to enforce those rules and regulations upon users who wish to avail of their services.

The user to whom that seems unappealing is free to seek a different service elsewhere.

This isn't going to change.

Yes, but the problem is every single public representative in the country uses these sites to communicate with the public, most of them exclusively so. We need to take a serious look at the ethics, legality and potential implications of this-I would be in favour of a formal ban on politicians using private social media companies' services for their public role if there isn't something already in SIPO regulations that might cover it.

suicide_circus

A big thank you to the moral gatekeepers for keeping us on the straight and narrow.

Tony EH

sabat wrote: »

Yes, but the problem is every single public representative in the country uses these sites to communicate with the public, most of them exclusively so. We need to take a serious look at the ethics, legality and potential implications of this-I would be in favour of a formal ban on politicians using private social media companies' services for their public role if there isn't something already in SIPO regulations that might cover it.

Personally, I could agree some what with that. But then again, I don't really care if a politician does use social media and often, it doesn't work out to their advantage.

TBH, the wiser ones tend to leave it alone I reckon.

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

Do you think legislaters/politicians writing up laws, look at the current laws, see how the current law conflicts with the reforms they're writing up, and go "that doesn't survive contact with reality" - then just chuck the new laws/reforms out?

No, because that would be fucking stupid.

The law as it stands is not fixed and unreformable - it does not represent 'reality', as if it's an immovable set of fixed physical laws - it's reformable/changeable at any time.

Can you stop just redundantly reciting the current law as if it's unchangeable, in response to an argument about reforming the law? It makes no sense, and I'd assume you're smart enough to see that logical flaw...

What laws, exactly, are you looking to have changed? And how, exactly, are they to be implemented across the web?

Are you saying that governments the world over are to interfere in private companies guidelines so that it creates a situation that's more pleasing to you? Because if that's the case, then you are going to be waiting a very long time indeed.

As things stand, and as they will for the foreseeable future, private online discussion platforms can, and do, implement whatever rules and regulations they see fit.

THAT is the reality of the situation.