laughing dog
Contributor
Your conclusion is a non-sequitur.
Your premise of a pretext business decision is an assumption of fact,
-
Features
Apple, Amazon, Google ban social media platform Parler in wake of US Capitol riots
- Thread starter Metaphor
- Start date
Your premise of a pretext business decision is an assumption of fact,
link said:
In other words, because bad behavior has been widespread it should simply be accepted and nothing done about it?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
That was basically the claim made by a few hundred motorists when Boston started using traffic cameras to cite violations. The lawyer in the class-action: "None of my clients feel they had done anything wrong when they got the ticket." I have driven in Boston. I believe thrry thought they were driving well, because that's how everyone drives, there.
I also belive they were violating up a storm.
I think this is a bad example--traffic cameras are normally positioned to take advantage of a problem with the situation. In places 90% of red light tickets are perfectly acceptable right-on-red cases.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 47,120
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Elixir
Made in America
If they want to take away his free speech they should put a pillow over his face and hold it there for about 15 minutes. That'll keep him from Tweeting!
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Can we get serious? Social media accounts are like guns. Is the possession of firearms free speech? If I point my loaded firearm at someone or threaten them with my broadsword am I really protected by free speech. Get a grip. Twitter is as much a weapon as is my 9mm.
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 10,663
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
repoman
Contributor
Youtube is demonetizing accounts that are progressive enough to be critical of Biden and the Dems from the left:
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1357113731931533312
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1357113731931533312
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 10,663
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
You mean Youtube doesn't only take down rightwingers?
Of course not. It's just that right wingers are the loudest whiners.
And, no, Youtube didn't take anything down just because it criticized Biden, your link doesn't even say that.
Youtube has the same problem as all the other big platforms, their moderation is not at all precise, it takes out more than it should because of broad spectrum algorithms, and then they have kafkaesque hurdles to manage for getting bad decisions corrected. There is way too much content for the number of human moderators they have to look at personally (and aren't willing to spend more on it), and a lot of their humans are stupid anyway. But it has nothing to do with content political ideology.
That's all true, except the last sentence. Twitter, for example, specifically names 'misgendering' and 'deadnaming' as 'hateful conduct', and has banned people for life for 'misgendering'. The position that misgendering somebody is hateful conduct is surely a political one.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Yes, as is the position that challenging claims that a person is a woman or a man is "misgendering" a person. They are taking the position that the challenger is in error, and further, that they express their challenge out of hatred.
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 10,663
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
Oh good, the gender platonists have chimed in.
To call banning misgendering political is like saying banning racial epithets is political. That some people would disagree with a ban doesn't necessarily make it political, except in the trivial sense that there is difference of opinion about it. You could call all banning policy political in that way. But call it political if you want.
I misspoke anyway, I should have said it has nothing do to with the user's politics, meaning, for example they don't take down only conservatives for misgendering.
I will say there is one bias I suspect from social media companies, which is a pro-Muslim favoritism: that they more often get a free pass for bigoted speech and that speech against Islam gets comparatively over-censored. Just my impression.
To call banning misgendering political is like saying banning racial epithets is political. That some people would disagree with a ban doesn't necessarily make it political, except in the trivial sense that there is difference of opinion about it. You could call all banning policy political in that way. But call it political if you want.
I misspoke anyway, I should have said it has nothing do to with the user's politics, meaning, for example they don't take down only conservatives for misgendering.
I will say there is one bias I suspect from social media companies, which is a pro-Muslim favoritism: that they more often get a free pass for bigoted speech and that speech against Islam gets comparatively over-censored. Just my impression.
I don't know what a "gender platonist" is, and I'm not sure I'd like to guess. Could you explain?
Well, yes, that fits my understanding of what 'political' means. Or perhaps it's better to say 'ideological'.
Its misgendering policy doesn't take into account 'conservative' vs 'other' in who they will take down, but in practice they take down people who are reported.
And, of course, the very idea that 'misgendering' is hateful, rests on multiple ideological assumptions that conservatives are less likely to agree with.
That favouritism is evident even in the wording of its policy on the issue. Twitter's example of forbidden behaviour is a statement of the form "All [religious group] are terrorists".
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
And you say that right after my post, so I reckon you very probably are talking about me. Your claim is false. I am not a Platonist, on gender or anything else.blastula said:
I do think, however, that obviously words have meaning. If Alice and Bob are in an office, and Alice says there is a car parked on the street in front of the building entrance, and Bob says that it is not the case that there is a car, but a vehicle that is not a car, there is a fact of the matter as to who is right. And the same happens if Alice says there is a lion in the Zoo that is in their city (there is only one zoo there), and Bob says there is no lion there. And the same happens if Alice says that Alice is a man, and Bob says that Alice is not a man. One of them is correct, one of them is mistaken. At least, this is so in nearly all cases. But words such as 'man' and 'woman' are not an exception when it comes to the 'nearly' part. Rather, concepts in human language are not defined to any arbitrary degree of accuracy.
For example, take the concept of a lion. Surely, there is a fact of the matter as to whether Cecil the lion was a lion. He was. Now consider the father of Cecil (call it C(2)), then the the grandfather, etc., until you reach, say, a common ancestor between Cecil the lion and Secretariat, call it C(N). I do not think there is a fact of the matter as to what is the minimum n between 1 and N such that C
is not a lion. The word 'lion' is not precise enough for that kind of usage. Or at least, we do not know whether there is a fact of the matter. And yet, we can still talk about whether something is a lion or not, make true or false statements, etc. When it comes to gender, usually the Woke do claim or imply that there is a fact of the matter. They just condemn - usually loudly -, and sometimes boycott, bully, etc., those who disagree with them about what the fact of the matter is.
I have seen many transgender claims. I have not seen evidence (including arguments, empirical evidence, etc.) on the basis of which the claims would probably be true.
I see no reason to believe so, in the context of "content political ideology.".blastula said:
Racial epithets are generally not claims, but insults, at least partially. Either they are content-free, or they have some derogatory content, but that is not all they have: they also contain an insult. And that gives a reason for banning them that is not based on content.
On the other hand, if I say, for example, that Elliot Page is a woman, I am not insulting her. I am making a claim about her - which by the way is not disparaging -, but that is it. Depending on context, I might also be making a point about the meaning of the words. But again, that an insult, and the ban is due to content.
Of course, if, instead of racial epithets, they ban - for example - claims asserting that people of race X are morally worse than those of race Y, that would be content-based indeed, and it may or may not be based on an ideology, depending on the person (but probably it is, given general human behavior).
But what makes it political, then?blastula said:
In this case, we have:
1. Ban based on content, not attitude.
2. It affects some ideologies or negations of ideologies, rather than others.
3. The motivation seems to be to further the cause of the Woke, or not to incur their wrath, or both.
Regardless, if you prefer "ideological" that works for me too. I think "political" fits due to the previous "content political ideology.", but again, no problem in going with "ideological" which is more precise anyway.
Of course they do not. But that's not the point. If they make a ban and take down all arguments in support of Christianity - not just those made by conservatives, or for that matter by Christians -, that certainly is content-based ban, and it would be rightfully characterized as a taking a religious stance, even if they do not do it due to religious conviction but not to piss off Christians.blastula said:
Remember, it's not that they just ban something like 'trans men are bitches' or something like that, but rather, 'trans men are not men', or 'trans men are women', or 'trans women are not women', etc. It's the content what they go after, not just the insults.
But that's part of the big Woke bias. The Woke also support Islam because they put Muslims high in the 'victim' category. The motivation for the pro-Muslim favoritism is usually not that they actually believe Muslim nonsense. Rather, it seems that they believe Woke nonsense, or are afraid of Woke retaliation, with boycotts, (other) media attacks, etc. That fits well with their general massive pro-Woke favoritism, like banning an argument that says that trans men are women, for example.blastula said:
repoman
Contributor
Last paragraph reminds me of this
TV and credit cards
Contributor
Or that they express the challenge out of a complete disregard for the person's sense of self; who they are, have always been, and hope to be in the future. And how does anyone else even have a dog in that hunt?
lpetrich
Contributor
Twitter's Trump ban is permanent and won't lift if he runs for office again, exec says - CNET - "Twitter's chief financial officer says the former president will remain tweetless."
noting
Squawk Box on Twitter: ""The way our policies work, when you're removed from the platform, you're removed from the platform whether you're a commentator, you're a CFO or you are a former or current public official," says $TWTR CFO @nedsegal on if President Trump's account could be restored. (vid link)" / Twitter
Good riddance. But I think that Twitter ought to open up its archives of Trump's tweets. Currently, there's The Trump Archive but it has its limits. I was able to find my favorite Trump tweet, however: "Wow! Big Trump Hater Congressman Joe Crowley, who many expected was going to take Nancy Pelosi’s place, just LOST his primary election. In other words, he’s out! That is a big one that nobody saw happening. Perhaps he should have been nicer, and more respectful, to his President!"
As if AOC primarying JC was somehow about him.
noting
Squawk Box on Twitter: ""The way our policies work, when you're removed from the platform, you're removed from the platform whether you're a commentator, you're a CFO or you are a former or current public official," says $TWTR CFO @nedsegal on if President Trump's account could be restored. (vid link)" / Twitter
Good riddance. But I think that Twitter ought to open up its archives of Trump's tweets. Currently, there's The Trump Archive but it has its limits. I was able to find my favorite Trump tweet, however: "Wow! Big Trump Hater Congressman Joe Crowley, who many expected was going to take Nancy Pelosi’s place, just LOST his primary election. In other words, he’s out! That is a big one that nobody saw happening. Perhaps he should have been nicer, and more respectful, to his President!"
As if AOC primarying JC was somehow about him.