Silicon Valley goes full Orwell, ADL and SPLC now official Google/Facebook/Twitter censors

[brycejones]

The potential for tech companies to develop censorship for "unacceptable" communication on social media. My question is, since social media and/or tech companies have physical ownership of devices used to support the "internet", where is the cutoff for censoring "unacceptable" communication? Do we now get the "Great Firewall of America"?

• AT&T.
• Verizon.
• Sprint (Softbank Broadband)
• Century Link (Qwest)
• Level 3 (with Global Crossing now)
• NTT/Verio.

Which of those companies own social media companies? These are the companies that provide the real backbone of the internet in the US. You know that fiber you keep whining about. The reality is companies like google lease dark fiber that other companies ran years ago. They don't really "own" all that much of the fiber that is in the ground.

 

[realibrad]

Don't be silly, this has already been covered by SCOTUS. Actions that are inseparable from those intrinsic characteristics are equivalent to them. This is one of many reasons why sodomy laws are unconstitutional as having sex with men is an inherent part of being gay. It's amazing that this argument is still brought up to this day as if it hadn't been covered decades ago.

Regardless of whether or not you think this is a meritorious argument, and I have zero desire to argue if you don't, it's an absolutely consistent one that liberals (and the courts) have relied on for many, many years. So again, I'm extremely confused here as to why you think this thread is at all notable? Can you help us understand?

How can gender be 100% a social construct and something that a person picks, and that not be something you can discriminate against? I understand that VII prohibits discrimination based on these things, but why should something that is a choice not be exempted? Being gay is not a choice, but apparently gender is.

 

[fskimospy]

How can gender be 100% a social construct and something that a person picks, and that not be something you can discriminate against? I understand that VII prohibits discrimination based on these things, but why should something that is a choice not be exempted? Being gay is not a choice, but apparently gender is.

Liberals view things like gender, sexual orientation, etc. as intrinsic characteristics and oppose discriminating on them. Liberals have always been in favor of discriminating based on actions such as those described in this thread. Whether or not you personally view gender to be inherent or not is irrelevant because liberals overwhelmingly do. I’m quite confident all this has been pointed out in threads you have previously participated in, making your confusion bizarre.

You are correct that conservatives are behaving inconsistently here, but only insofar as you assume their stance is ideological as opposed to tribal.

There’s really nothing else to add to this and I have no desire to debate what attributes count as intrinsic.

 

[zinfamous]

The potential for tech companies to develop censorship for "unacceptable" communication on social media. My question is, since social media and/or tech companies have physical ownership of devices used to support the "internet", where is the cutoff for censoring "unacceptable" communication? Do we now get the "Great Firewall of America"?

well you went in a different direction here. You're no longer talking about the social media platforms "censoring" their own content and how that violates your freedom of speech--essentially because they have become the de-facto popular speech platforms. Let's stick with that subject first.

Thing is, I don't disagree with you. At some point, when these platforms become (as they pretty much have) the primary means of communicating between individuals and, apparently, disseminating news, they march into a grey area between private company and public trust. They certainly aren't regulated (they don't have to pay license fees and head to SEC guidelines) like media organizations, so it's the Wild West for them. And, as determined by our market economy, they get to make their own rules to govern this ostensibly lawless enterprise. I agree with you that this sort of governance becomes dangerous when they have become the defacto gateway of information.

So, essentially, they need to be regulated similarly to media. At the same time, there needs to be a public trust that the information you receive is real information, not nonsense from a troll farm. Simply being fed what you want to hear, regardless of veracity, doesn't do you any good despite how it makes you feel. It doesn't do anyone any good. Perhaps there are better platforms for that and if that is what you want, then it isn't at all what you are arguing for here. I doubt that algorithms are the best way to solve this problem of separating truth from lies with such accounts, but it is a way. The other option is to get around these pesky licenses that require ethics in information dissemination by declaring yourself an "entertainment platform" to the SEC, which is exactly what FOX News does. They don't have to worry about bothersome issues of ethics and source-based vetting of information, because they aren't beholden to the same guidelines that govern network media, NYT, Washington Post, etc. You know, the actual media.

It sounds like what you want is government regulation to insure that social media meets standards that real people are protected to blather about their nonsense (media) but, that there is no oversight to discern between what is clearly fake and what isn't (FOX). I think you have to chose one.

 

[realibrad]

well you went in a different direction here. You're no longer talking about the social media platforms "censoring" their own content and how that violates your freedom of speech--essentially because they have become the de-facto popular speech platforms. Let's stick with that subject first.

Thing is, I don't disagree with you. At some point, when these platforms become (as they pretty much have) the primary means of communicating between individuals and, apparently, disseminating news, they march into a grey area between private company and public trust. They certainly aren't regulated (they don't have to pay license fees and head to SEC guidelines) like media organizations, so it's the Wild West for them. And, as determined by our market economy, they get to make their own rules to govern this ostensibly lawless enterprise. I agree with you that this sort of governance becomes dangerous when they have become the defacto gateway of information.

So, essentially, they need to be regulated similarly to media. At the same time, there needs to be a public trust that the information you receive is real information, not nonsense from a troll farm. Simply being fed what you want to hear, regardless of veracity, doesn't do you any good despite how it makes you feel. It doesn't do anyone any good. Perhaps there are better platforms for that and if that is what you want, then it isn't at all what you are arguing for here. I doubt that algorithms are the best way to solve this problem of separating truth from lies with such accounts, but it is a way. The other option is to get around these pesky licenses that require ethics in information dissemination by declaring yourself an "entertainment platform" to the SEC, which is exactly what FOX News does. They don't have to worry about bothersome issues of ethics and source-based vetting of information, because they aren't beholden to the same guidelines that govern network media, NYT, Washington Post, etc. You know, the actual media.

It sounds like what you want is government regulation to insure that social media meets standards that real people are protected to blather about their nonsense (media) but, that there is no oversight to discern between what is clearly fake and what isn't (FOX). I think you have to chose one.

Here is where you either believe your position or you don't. If you believe that government regulation is bad, then you have to accept companies like google doing what they do. If you believe that government should be regulating this, then you cant make the argument that this is a good thing.

 

[Amused]

You do understand that what we call "Social Media" doesn't operate in the same manner as a local bakery? Right? So trying to make the comparison is silly to say the least. Social media has become the new outlet and source of information and several of the companies listed actually own and control the physical hardware that transmits and stores various bits of information,even the bits that are not related to "Social Media". Do you think that they will stop censoring efforts at the boundaries of twitter, facebook, instagram, or other social media platforms? Those companies are positioning themselves to be every Libtard's wet dream of a totalitarian utopia. All your opinions are belonging to us, I guess.

Keep on Derping!

Is social media a private business?

Yes.

Is private business allowed to make its own rules and policies as long as they do not violate the protected (sex, race, religion)?

Yes.

The hilarity here is so-called "free market conservatives" basically calling for the socialization of private companies because they won't allow their propaganda and hate speech.

The first thing a fascist totalitarian state does is take over and control communication and media. That is what YOU are calling for, the removal of private control of media companies.

You keep on derping the hypocrite derp. Keep an advocating fascism in the name of freedom for your masters.

 

[ivwshane]

Not sure if you are that stupid or just getting started on your weekend troll fest and using "protip" negates any statement that follows. The only time you should offer a "protip" is if we want to be the proverbial skid mark on P&N.

Hey now, he could never replace you!

 

[Commodus]

The potential for tech companies to develop censorship for "unacceptable" communication on social media. My question is, since social media and/or tech companies have physical ownership of devices used to support the "internet", where is the cutoff for censoring "unacceptable" communication? Do we now get the "Great Firewall of America"?

To quickly reiterate: Facebook, Google, Twitter et. al. don't actually own key internet infrastructure. The closest you get is cloud services like Google Cloud or Amazon Web Services, but they're not the ones giving people the boot, are they?

And it's pretty simple: private publishers are not obligated to host views they don't like. Do you think Fox News should be legally obligated to guarantee a major show for a left-wing host, like Shepard Smith? Of course you don't. Telling YouTube or Twitter that it "must" host some conspiracy-floating racist piece of shit is the exact same thing. If you value free speech, you also value the freedom of publishers to choose what they publish.

 

[Triloby]

Ugh why did I click that link, ugh I feel dirty

To be fair, those sites I've linked are social media sites that claim "no censorship at any cost".

The obvious effect of disallowing any kind of censorship means that certain groups of people will start flocking to these sites (white supremacists, pedophiles, alt-right, possible convicts, actual degenerates, etc.), and turn those places into one hell of a degenerate cesspool of meticulous garbage.

 

[sdifox]

So "Fuck You Got Mine" cannot be said to conservatards?

 

[dank69]

Correct, Farrakhan and the Nation have zero influence with politicians in the USA. It's not like pictures of influential politicians with Farrakhan have been hidden for several years.

So anyone that has ever been in a picture with you has influence over you? Every celebrity that ever takes a picture with a fan is now influenced by that fan? Is this what passes for logic in your world? Haha, yes, I know the answer to that last one.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So "Fuck You Got Mine" cannot be said to conservatards?

If you wanna see snow catch fire.

 

[zinfamous]

Here is where you either believe your position or you don't. If you believe that government regulation is bad, then you have to accept companies like google doing what they do. If you believe that government should be regulating this, then you cant make the argument that this is a good thing.

The problem is, there is no rational way to be on a single side of "regulation bad!" or "regulation good!"

The only rational argument is that certain regulation is absolutely necessary for the economy to work. There simply is no other way. All private businesses are essentially regulated in some way. I don't know of a single liberal that thinks that everything always needs to be regulated, and that the government is our hero here to shelter us from all the bad evil things in the world. It's a nonsense conservative fantasy.

Social Media has certainly found itself enmeshed in a paradigm where they, through their own intention (Facebook and their asinine "likes" system that filters out all meaningful information from account owners), have cornered the "market" on informing the average person. Some people seem to be getting pissed that all of the fake accounts and lies that they have been "liking" for years now have suddenly disappeared, because they were fake accounts that violated the user terms. This isn't censorship, this is simply a violation of the rules of the private company.

HOWEVER, it isn't that simple, due to the aforementioned fact that Facebook, et al. is now more than simply a nonsense entertainment and time-wasting platform, used to chat and keep up with families. Now, people depend on them for news. It's one thing to criticize individuals for freely accepting how the "like" system has intentionally limited their personal information exposure, by the user's own free determination, and the user is essentially responsible for feeding themselves and gleefully accepting the bullshit, but you also have to accept the reality that this has become the chosen source of information. At some point, Facebook needs to own up to a responsibility that they have become, perhaps unintentionally, legitimate influence peddlers on the general public. This is great for Facebook, because their investors (the advertisers that buy their product--i.e.: Facebook users), love the trapped audience and the reams of freely-given personal market data, but it is relatively terrible for the general public because the public has narrowed their knowledge about the world around them considerably. Facebook, as a private company, has every right whatsoever to ban fake accounts that violate their rules; but they also have a responsibility to ensure that their platform does no harm to the general public. They are regulated as a business (I'm guessing an "entertainment business"), but it seems to me that if you consider the general philosophy of the board at Facebook and what they desire for the reputation of their platform, they need to start considering their current role as a media channel. They aren't creating the news (still more or less the role of major print and broadcast media, anyway), but they are now the portal that exposes the average person to news. Just like Twitter. That is a major responsibility and is a new paradigm without a real definition. The only possible answer is some form of regulation through proper licensing that sees them share similar ethical responsibilities to the real media. I think it gets the confused conservative exactly what they want and need, but you'll never here them admit it because of the evil "R" word.

 

[zinfamous]

To quickly reiterate: Facebook, Google, Twitter et. al. don't actually own key internet infrastructure. The closest you get is cloud services like Google Cloud or Amazon Web Services, but they're not the ones giving people the boot, are they?

And it's pretty simple: private publishers are not obligated to host views they don't like. Do you think Fox News should be legally obligated to guarantee a major show for a left-wing host, like Shepard Smith? Of course you don't. Telling YouTube or Twitter that it "must" host some conspiracy-floating racist piece of shit is the exact same thing. If you value free speech, you also value the freedom of publishers to choose what they publish.

Actually, they once were (or rather, would have been):

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

FCC once required news media to provide ample air time for, well, "both sides" to keep their broadcast licenses. Of course, this was eventually overturned by a Reagan stooge at the FCC, c. 1985-1987, when SCOTUS eventually agreed that FCC no longer needed to enforce a "diversity of opinion" in the news. ....Then FOX news network came into being. And despite them being unable to operate in a pre-Fairness Doctrine world, they took on the Orwellian label of "fair and balanced," basically because they knew that their general audience would be complete morons and believe these claims without ever having the desire of wherewithal to investigate such claims. For modern conservatives, then, information is not about truth, but about feels. It's right there codified in this SCOTUS decision and FCC law.

 

[hal2kilo]

The far left needs to understand the same thing. They have a very bad habit of designating anything they don't want to hear as hate speech. There were lots of calls this past week calling for the NRA to be banned from social media sites, to be designated a hate group, etc. These same folks didn't have anything to say about Farrakhans recent speech though did they? Hypocrites are the worst.

Sorry you didn't get your cake.

Yes we have this bad habit of being intolerant of people who are intolerant.

 

[1prophet]

To quickly reiterate: Facebook, Google, Twitter et. al. don't actually own key internet infrastructure. The closest you get is cloud services like Google Cloud or Amazon Web Services, but they're not the ones giving people the boot, are they?

And it's pretty simple: private publishers are not obligated to host views they don't like. Do you think Fox News should be legally obligated to guarantee a major show for a left-wing host, like Shepard Smith? Of course you don't. Telling YouTube or Twitter that it "must" host some conspiracy-floating racist piece of shit is the exact same thing. If you value free speech, you also value the freedom of publishers to choose what they publish.

Ironic and sad to see more and more Liberals who would fight tooth and nail for free speech in the past even defending nazi's and KKK types setting up the stage for corporations to control speech by using the same "it's a private business conservative argument" .

Using that logic Microsoft should have been able to force you to use Internet Explorer, if you don't like their terms just wipe your harddrive and install Linux since they don't own the computer.

 

[hal2kilo]

Holy shit. You are actually the reason chainsaws need warning labels.

I lol'd.

 

[realibrad]

The problem is, there is no rational way to be on a single side of "regulation bad!" or "regulation good!"

To me, it simply means that the perceived positions are inherently flawed and a more accurate position should be created. I don't disagree with you that you can't be on a single side. I think if your model for looking at things breaks, then you simply need to change your model. That opinion sure seems to rub people the wrong way though.

The only rational argument is that certain regulation is absolutely necessary for the economy to work. There simply is no other way. All private businesses are essentially regulated in some way. I don't know of a single liberal that thinks that everything always needs to be regulated, and that the government is our hero here to shelter us from all the bad evil things in the world. It's a nonsense conservative fantasy.

Agreed. There is not really two positions, just a different line drawn on the same continuum which is different for every person.

Social Media has certainly found itself enmeshed in a paradigm where they, through their own intention (Facebook and their asinine "likes" system that filters out all meaningful information from account owners), have cornered the "market" on informing the average person. Some people seem to be getting pissed that all of the fake accounts and lies that they have been "liking" for years now have suddenly disappeared, because they were fake accounts that violated the user terms. This isn't censorship, this is simply a violation of the rules of the private company.

Its both sad and funny. Sad that so many were following Russians the whole time, but funny that they are now angry that their Russian friends are gone. I think that part is not censorship, but I also don't think that is the only thing going on personally.

HOWEVER, it isn't that simple, due to the aforementioned fact that Facebook, et al. is now more than simply a nonsense entertainment and time-wasting platform, used to chat and keep up with families. Now, people depend on them for news. It's one thing to criticize individuals for freely accepting how the "like" system has intentionally limited their personal information exposure, by the user's own free determination, and the user is essentially responsible for feeding themselves and gleefully accepting the bullshit, but you also have to accept the reality that this has become the chosen source of information. At some point, Facebook needs to own up to a responsibility that they have become, perhaps unintentionally, legitimate influence peddlers on the general public. This is great for Facebook, because their investors (the advertisers that buy their product--i.e.: Facebook users), love the trapped audience and the reams of freely-given personal market data, but it is relatively terrible for the general public because the public has narrowed their knowledge about the world around them considerably. Facebook, as a private company, has every right whatsoever to ban fake accounts that violate their rules; but they also have a responsibility to ensure that their platform does no harm to the general public. They are regulated as a business (I'm guessing an "entertainment business"), but it seems to me that if you consider the general philosophy of the board at Facebook and what they desire for the reputation of their platform, they need to start considering their current role as a media channel. They aren't creating the news (still more or less the role of major print and broadcast media, anyway), but they are now the portal that exposes the average person to news. Just like Twitter. That is a major responsibility and is a new paradigm without a real definition. The only possible answer is some form of regulation through proper licensing that sees them share similar ethical responsibilities to the real media. I think it gets the confused conservative exactly what they want and need, but you'll never here them admit it because of the evil "R" word.

There are two options in my view. Either use government to regulate these things, which I find to have lots of problems, or people actually do something and not to let just one group run everything. I think the 2nd part is unlikely because people are too lazy and or disinterested.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

This thread has completely Duhverted, which is what OP and his assistants wanted.

 

[Amused]

The hilarity here? I am a true free market conservative, and the only conservative in this thread arguing for businesses to have the right to not carry material they, or the majority of their customers find objectionable.

The fact is, the only material being removed is racist, sexist, bigoted or slanderous. Period. Social media has looser standards than this very forum, and yet these people are still posting here.

The REAL reasons for the latest outcry reaching such a fever pitch?

In the last few weeks social media removed Russian bot accounts and took down videos and posts claiming the Florida shooting was a false flag.

Recognize why they are complaining. Don't be led on by selected dubious stories but look at the big picture. Alex Jones and other are having a shit fit because their false flag posts are quite rightfully being removed.

 

[Commodus]

Actually, they once were (or rather, would have been):

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

FCC once required news media to provide ample air time for, well, "both sides" to keep their broadcast licenses. Of course, this was eventually overturned by a Reagan stooge at the FCC, c. 1985-1987, when SCOTUS eventually agreed that FCC no longer needed to enforce a "diversity of opinion" in the news. ....Then FOX news network came into being. And despite them being unable to operate in a pre-Fairness Doctrine world, they took on the Orwellian label of "fair and balanced," basically because they knew that their general audience would be complete morons and believe these claims without ever having the desire of wherewithal to investigate such claims. For modern conservatives, then, information is not about truth, but about feels. It's right there codified in this SCOTUS decision and FCC law.

I remember that. As much as I think Fox News is a joke, policies like the Fairness Doctrine are also problematic because they both get the government into the business of policing content for reasons beyond protecting other civil rights, and treat all opinions as equally valid. Someone might think climate science is fake, for instance, but that doesn't mean their view holds water. If we believe in facts, we have to accept that some differing views are just... well, wrong.

 

[dyna]

Youtube has become a vital means of communication much like the post office/library was in the past. Censorship should be taken very seriously and they should be liable for censoring based on ideologies that fit a political agenda. They should at least give warnings. It seems like they raged out and starting censoring what they didn't like. This doesn't surprise me since Google can't get control of the hate generated inside their own company around women or political beliefs.

 

[thraashman]

This thread has completely Duhverted, which is what OP and his assistants wanted.

Every 0roo thread is just "crazy as fuck" hour with the alt right. There's nothing to divert because it started nonsensical and stupid to begin with like every single post he makes.

 

[brycejones]

Youtube has become a vital means of communication much like the post office/library was in the past. Censorship should be taken very seriously and they should be liable for censoring based on ideologies that fit a political agenda. They should at least give warnings. It seems like they raged out and starting censoring what they didn't like. This doesn't surprise me since Google can't get control of the hate generated inside their own company around women or political beliefs.

I'm curious what do you think has actually been done?

 

[Amused]

I'm curious what do you think has actually been done?

Everything his cult media has been claimed has been done, of course! Innocent people having their videos removed for perfectly innocent political ideologies. Nothing at all to do with racism, sexism, bigotry and slander. Nothing at all.