• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Is it now forbidden to be wrong?

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,319
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Articles like this worry me:


In a free society people have to be allowed to disagree and have arguments about stuff. Like we do on this forum. It's got to be allowed to be a climate change denier. I'm not. But I don't want my mere layman's opinion to be etched into stone (ie made law). That would be a terrible development IMHO.

Facebook has no responsibility for anything. They're under no obligation to protect us from ourselves. In fact, if we forbid dumb people from speaking, we all become dumber. The brain is like any muscle. It needs exercising. If we ban bullshit, we will lower resilience to the inevitable bullshit that does manage to slip through the cracks.

I don't like the way the article is formulated. I fear we're sliding into a world of well-meaning totalitarian censorship. A world without lies is soma in Brave New World.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,352
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
There are plenty of venues for people to spout their lies and misinformation. No vendor is under compulsion to allow the quality of their product or service to be diluted or soiled. Facebook is attempting (and doing rather poorly) to protect the quality of the service.

Your OP is an example of making an extreme leap to a false conclusion.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Articles like this worry me:


In a free society people have to be allowed to disagree and have arguments about stuff. Like we do on this forum. It's got to be allowed to be a climate change denier. I'm not. But I don't want my mere layman's opinion to be etched into stone (ie made law). That would be a terrible development IMHO.

Facebook has no responsibility for anything. They're under no obligation to protect us from ourselves. In fact, if we forbid dumb people from speaking, we all become dumber. The brain is like any muscle. It needs exercising. If we ban bullshit, we will lower resilience to the inevitable bullshit that does manage to slip through the cracks.

I don't like the way the article is formulated. I fear we're sliding into a world of well-meaning totalitarian censorship. A world without lies is soma in Brave New World.
Well first, the underlying post needs to actually be coming from a person, not a Bot before we say Facebook is censoring anything. If it is a person and they are just being stupid, there isn't much to control there.

One trouble with Facebook is the ease to disseminate fake information using Bots. And then it gets latched onto. There isn't much that can be done other than if an account isn't attached to a human or a transparent organization, all posts should be labeled as a Bot. This will only go so far though. Facebook created a monster they have no control over and there is little viable control to be had, other than ending the anonymity.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,319
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There is a difference between being wrong and being deceptive. i.e. lying.

Ok. So what? It's also ok to lie.

Facebook should be equated with sitting in a bar talking shit. It's not the font of truth.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,900
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Facebook should be equated with sitting in a bar talking shit. It's not the font of truth.
The owner of the bar can kick you out if you don't shut the fuck up about the holocaust being fake. If you're in facebook's bar, you drink by their rules.

I'm looking forward to your obvious response being something in the realms of, "How is that different to discrimination? Where will it end?"
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
By curating the content on its site, does FB become a publisher subject to civil liability?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,728
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,293
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
By curating the content on its site, does FB become a publisher subject to civil liability?
Do users of Facebook agree to Facebook’s rules when signing up? Aren’t they a private company providing a private service to those who willingly choose to partake of that service?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,319
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Articles like this worry me:


In a free society people have to be allowed to disagree and have arguments about stuff. Like we do on this forum. It's got to be allowed to be a climate change denier. I'm not. But I don't want my mere layman's opinion to be etched into stone (ie made law). That would be a terrible development IMHO.

Facebook has no responsibility for anything. They're under no obligation to protect us from ourselves. In fact, if we forbid dumb people from speaking, we all become dumber. The brain is like any muscle. It needs exercising. If we ban bullshit, we will lower resilience to the inevitable bullshit that does manage to slip through the cracks.

I don't like the way the article is formulated. I fear we're sliding into a world of well-meaning totalitarian censorship. A world without lies is soma in Brave New World.
Well first, the underlying post needs to actually be coming from a person, not a Bot before we say Facebook is censoring anything. If it is a person and they are just being stupid, there isn't much to control there.

One trouble with Facebook is the ease to disseminate fake information using Bots. And then it gets latched onto. There isn't much that can be done other than if an account isn't attached to a human or a transparent organization, all posts should be labeled as a Bot. This will only go so far though. Facebook created a monster they have no control over and there is little viable control to be had, other than ending the anonymity.

Ok, fine. So what?

In Egyptian tombs they wrote all the things that went well in the pharao's reign. They left out anything negative. We know the context. So we understand that ancient Egypt wasn't a never ending success story. We also know that Abrham Lincoln didn't really say that we shouldn't trust everything we read on the Internet.
Facebook should be equated with sitting in a bar talking shit. It's not the font of truth.
The owner of the bar can kick you out if you don't shut the fuck up about the holocaust being fake. If you're in facebook's bar, you drink by their rules.

I'm looking forward to your obvious response being something in the realms of, "How is that different to discrimination? Where will it end?"
I don't think people get thrown out of bars for that
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,319
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.
I don't think anyone has that responsibility. The only responsibility we have is to seek bliss on our own terms. That's it
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,319
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There are plenty of venues for people to spout their lies and misinformation. No vendor is under compulsion to allow the quality of their product or service to be diluted or soiled. Facebook is attempting (and doing rather poorly) to protect the quality of the service.

Your OP is an example of making an extreme leap to a false conclusion.
That's not how the article is formulated. It makes it sound like this is something that it is desirable to stop and that Facebook has a duty to stop it.

If we want to get morals involved, the highest moral value here is that of free expression. The most moral thing to do for Facebook here is the easiest, ie nothing
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Articles like this worry me:


In a free society people have to be allowed to disagree and have arguments about stuff. Like we do on this forum. It's got to be allowed to be a climate change denier. I'm not. But I don't want my mere layman's opinion to be etched into stone (ie made law). That would be a terrible development IMHO.

Facebook has no responsibility for anything. They're under no obligation to protect us from ourselves. In fact, if we forbid dumb people from speaking, we all become dumber. The brain is like any muscle. It needs exercising. If we ban bullshit, we will lower resilience to the inevitable bullshit that does manage to slip through the cracks.

I don't like the way the article is formulated. I fear we're sliding into a world of well-meaning totalitarian censorship. A world without lies is soma in Brave New World.
Well first, the underlying post needs to actually be coming from a person, not a Bot before we say Facebook is censoring anything. If it is a person and they are just being stupid, there isn't much to control there.

One trouble with Facebook is the ease to disseminate fake information using Bots. And then it gets latched onto. There isn't much that can be done other than if an account isn't attached to a human or a transparent organization, all posts should be labeled as a Bot. This will only go so far though. Facebook created a monster they have no control over and there is little viable control to be had, other than ending the anonymity.

Ok, fine. So what?
Okay, so you are having trouble agreeing with me accepting that moderating individual opinions isn't a positive thing? Do you feel that you just need to be disagreeable?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
By curating the content on its site, does FB become a publisher subject to civil liability?
Do users of Facebook agree to Facebook’s rules when signing up? Aren’t they a private company providing a private service to those who willingly choose to partake of that service?
As a private entity, they control it all (anything that is legal). Facebook, by default wouldn't give a damn... which is why we are knee deep in this issue to begin with.

When it comes to information exchange, the question is do they have any moral responsibility of the information that is exchanged and if so, between whom, and over what? Facebook is facing outside pressure to deal with misinformation. But what level of oversight is morally justified. Climate change denial? 2+2 = 5? Joe Rogan is a viable source of info for medicine?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.
And IIDB, TF, etc... have long held the rule that you can't accuse members of lying, because you can't know the intent. People should not lie and should not spread misinformation.

The trouble is, in order to know you are spreading misinformation, you have to know it is misinformation. And probably most of the spread of misinformation is by the sheep swallowing their ivermectin. One isn't lying if they think it is the actual truth.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,728
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.
And IIDB, TF, etc... have long held the rule that you can't accuse members of lying, because you can't know the intent. People should not lie and should not spread misinformation.

The trouble is, in order to know you are spreading misinformation, you have to know it is misinformation. And probably most of the spread of misinformation is by the sheep swallowing their ivermectin. One isn't lying if they think it is the actual truth.
This is true. I don't think people should be thrown in jail for posting bad things on Facebook, nor is that what's happening. But I do think Facebook has every right to try and exert some manner of control over what gets posted on their platform, and if they know something is wrong, to halt its spread.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,728
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.
I don't think anyone has that responsibility. The only responsibility we have is to seek bliss on our own terms. That's it
At least Crowley added "an it harm none". You're not the only person in society whose rights matter.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,900
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
I don't think people get thrown out of bars for that
Believe what you want. I don't recommend going the West Ryde Hotel on Victoria Rd in Sydney then, if I were you.

I mean this isn't hard - if you're going to be a cunt, just accept that there are consequences.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,898
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
One reason I call myself a centrist (albeit it a radical centrist!) is that all ideologies are flawed. Adults should understand that politics must be about solving practical problems, not fantasizing about some utopia.

In our fantasies we might like maximum freedom: the right to lie as much as we want, to drive our car when drunk, and to have sex with 13-year olds who say Yes. But practical societies put limits on behavior.

Freedom of speech sounds like a good idea, and many Americans treat this right as almost as sacred as the right to bear arms. But however many examples of trouble-free lies you come up with will not change the fact that in post-rational American society, lying has become a nearly trillion-dollar industry that threatens our democracy and — some say — threatens civilization itself! If you think these are exaggerations, start a thread and make that argument. But to ignore these threats and be blinded by some ideological wet-dream about the right to lie is to elevate fantasy over reality.

In America, the government has little power to stop lies unless specific statutes, e.g. on fraud, are breached. But reputable newspapers have always refused to publish inflammatory bullshit in their Letters sections; this refusal does not violate the First Amendment. Facebook is also allowed to monitor its content, and we should hope they do even more to fulfill that responsibility.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,389
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.
And IIDB, TF, etc... have long held the rule that you can't accuse members of lying, because you can't know the intent. People should not lie and should not spread misinformation.

The trouble is, in order to know you are spreading misinformation, you have to know it is misinformation. And probably most of the spread of misinformation is by the sheep swallowing their ivermectin. One isn't lying if they think it is the actual truth.
This is true. I don't think people should be thrown in jail for posting bad things on Facebook, nor is that what's happening. But I do think Facebook has every right to try and exert some manner of control over what gets posted on their platform, and if they know something is wrong, to halt its spread.
When I've posted something on FB and it turns out to be wrong they let me know why and link to a standard boilerplate correction.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,389
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
When I've posted something on FB and it turns out to be wrong they let me know why and link to a standard boilerplate correction.
And then you're fined, and sent to jail if you don't pay the fine. Right? :coffee:
It's the food in the jail that's the real punishment.

and the sodomy...
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
By curating the content on its site, does FB become a publisher subject to civil liability?

In the Republican fantasy world they would be held accountable for things the QOP doesn't like.

In the real world section 230 applies. Without it there would be no social media of any type.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
FDX8pnAX0AI6RKW
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,319
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Articles like this worry me:


In a free society people have to be allowed to disagree and have arguments about stuff. Like we do on this forum. It's got to be allowed to be a climate change denier. I'm not. But I don't want my mere layman's opinion to be etched into stone (ie made law). That would be a terrible development IMHO.

Facebook has no responsibility for anything. They're under no obligation to protect us from ourselves. In fact, if we forbid dumb people from speaking, we all become dumber. The brain is like any muscle. It needs exercising. If we ban bullshit, we will lower resilience to the inevitable bullshit that does manage to slip through the cracks.

I don't like the way the article is formulated. I fear we're sliding into a world of well-meaning totalitarian censorship. A world without lies is soma in Brave New World.
Well first, the underlying post needs to actually be coming from a person, not a Bot before we say Facebook is censoring anything. If it is a person and they are just being stupid, there isn't much to control there.

One trouble with Facebook is the ease to disseminate fake information using Bots. And then it gets latched onto. There isn't much that can be done other than if an account isn't attached to a human or a transparent organization, all posts should be labeled as a Bot. This will only go so far though. Facebook created a monster they have no control over and there is little viable control to be had, other than ending the anonymity.

Ok, fine. So what?

In Egyptian tombs they wrote all the things that went well in the pharao's reign. They left out anything negative. We know the context. So we understand that ancient Egypt wasn't a never ending success story. We're aware that human biases shape how we express ourselves. That's not going to change. We also know that Abraham Lincoln didn't really say that we shouldn't trust everything we read on the Internet.

Isn't it better to teach people how biases work, rather than to try to change the entire world. What the first option has going for it is that it's cheap and people have an incentive to get themselves educated. The other one is expensive and turns adults into children.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,319
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Articles like this worry me:


In a free society people have to be allowed to disagree and have arguments about stuff. Like we do on this forum. It's got to be allowed to be a climate change denier. I'm not. But I don't want my mere layman's opinion to be etched into stone (ie made law). That would be a terrible development IMHO.

Facebook has no responsibility for anything. They're under no obligation to protect us from ourselves. In fact, if we forbid dumb people from speaking, we all become dumber. The brain is like any muscle. It needs exercising. If we ban bullshit, we will lower resilience to the inevitable bullshit that does manage to slip through the cracks.

I don't like the way the article is formulated. I fear we're sliding into a world of well-meaning totalitarian censorship. A world without lies is soma in Brave New World.
Well first, the underlying post needs to actually be coming from a person, not a Bot before we say Facebook is censoring anything. If it is a person and they are just being stupid, there isn't much to control there.

One trouble with Facebook is the ease to disseminate fake information using Bots. And then it gets latched onto. There isn't much that can be done other than if an account isn't attached to a human or a transparent organization, all posts should be labeled as a Bot. This will only go so far though. Facebook created a monster they have no control over and there is little viable control to be had, other than ending the anonymity.

Ok, fine. So what?
Okay, so you are having trouble agreeing with me accepting that moderating individual opinions isn't a positive thing? Do you feel that you just need to be disagreeable?
I think moderating individual opinions is morally reprehensible. I don't have a problem with kicking out spam bots or obvious trolls. Facebook has special interest groups that are moderated by the people who created them. Facebook doesn't need to do anything.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,442
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.
I don't think anyone has that responsibility. The only responsibility we have is to seek bliss on our own terms. That's it
At least Crowley added "an it harm none". You're not the only person in society whose rights matter.
No he didn't. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". Your bit was a Wicca add-on many years after Crowley died.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.
I don't think anyone has that responsibility. The only responsibility we have is to seek bliss on our own terms. That's it
At least Crowley added "an it harm none". You're not the only person in society whose rights matter.
No he didn't. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". Your bit was a Wicca add-on many years after Crowley died.
See this is the classic blunder of the conservative. They think the first gobshite to open their mouth and talk about a thing as if they knew it actually did know it.

That's not how it works. That's not actually how any of this works.

Why should it matter who added a rule when? What is important is "why was it modified?' and here the answer is "because to do as ye wilt sets us against one another, and so for the fall as we trip ourselves."

"An ye harm none" takes the selfish solipsistic garbage position and makes a world where we can build something without having it torn down.

Take whatever you may from this, but I have yet to see a single virtual world where "do as ye wilt" without "an ye harm none" yields anything but a fucking mess, without a regular reset of the system.

This is the very core concept of "maturity", in fact, that you are not actually allowed to be wrong without consequence.

It is forbidden to remain wrong; when someone can only ever remain wrong, they are expected to have oversight and mitigation for their wrongness.

In ways we can all only ever be wrong, we are at least expected to admit it maturely that we are still wrong despite acting "as if" we are not.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Articles like this worry me:


In a free society people have to be allowed to disagree and have arguments about stuff. Like we do on this forum. It's got to be allowed to be a climate change denier. I'm not. But I don't want my mere layman's opinion to be etched into stone (ie made law). That would be a terrible development IMHO.

Facebook has no responsibility for anything. They're under no obligation to protect us from ourselves. In fact, if we forbid dumb people from speaking, we all become dumber. The brain is like any muscle. It needs exercising. If we ban bullshit, we will lower resilience to the inevitable bullshit that does manage to slip through the cracks.

I don't like the way the article is formulated. I fear we're sliding into a world of well-meaning totalitarian censorship. A world without lies is soma in Brave New World.
Well first, the underlying post needs to actually be coming from a person, not a Bot before we say Facebook is censoring anything. If it is a person and they are just being stupid, there isn't much to control there.

One trouble with Facebook is the ease to disseminate fake information using Bots. And then it gets latched onto. There isn't much that can be done other than if an account isn't attached to a human or a transparent organization, all posts should be labeled as a Bot. This will only go so far though. Facebook created a monster they have no control over and there is little viable control to be had, other than ending the anonymity.

Ok, fine. So what?
Okay, so you are having trouble agreeing with me accepting that moderating individual opinions isn't a positive thing? Do you feel that you just need to be disagreeable?
I think moderating individual opinions is morally reprehensible. I don't have a problem with kicking out spam bots or obvious trolls. Facebook has special interest groups that are moderated by the people who created them. Facebook doesn't need to do anything.

Don’t need to do anything but kill the Bots and trolls that is.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,442
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.
I don't think anyone has that responsibility. The only responsibility we have is to seek bliss on our own terms. That's it
At least Crowley added "an it harm none". You're not the only person in society whose rights matter.
No he didn't. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". Your bit was a Wicca add-on many years after Crowley died.
See this is the classic blunder of the conservative. They ... open their mouth and talk about a thing as if they knew it actually did know it.
Not sure who you're calling a conservative, but I guess it hardly matters since you use that word as a catch-all for everyone who disagrees with you. But I'm not a conservative, Politesse isn't a conservative, Crowley wasn't a conservative, the Wiccas who changed his rule weren't conservatives, and "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" isn't a conservative sentiment. It's pretty much straight up anarchism.

Why should it matter who added a rule when?
Um, because the guy who said "Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods" was teaching a falsehood.

What is important is "why was it modified?' and here the answer is "because to do as ye wilt sets us against one another, and so for the fall as we trip ourselves."

"An ye harm none" takes the selfish solipsistic garbage position and makes a world where we can build something without having it torn down.
Lecture it to somebody who thinks Crowley was the prophet he believed he was. The guy was a certifiable whackjob. "An ye harm none" takes Crowley's idiocy and, in anachronistic language to give it an air of ancient wisdom, morphs it into content-free pablum. Pretty much everybody thinks whatever he wants to outlaw counts as "harm" and whatever he wants to authorize is harmless.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,728
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,211
Instead of censoring out the misinformation, the correction should be to post a rebuttal along with it which is conspicuous enough that the reader cannot miss it.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,319
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,508
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda. The speakers frequently use code words or make up new words so they don't get demonetized, or get their videos taken down. Words like rape & feminist set off the censors. Its just very bizarre watching them wink and nod around these words. Its very reminiscent of your discussion about Chinese censorship. I always thought we in the Western world were better than that, but I guess not...
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
To be fair, it's not Trausti I see whinging about curses here. It's Bomb. Hence why when I respond concerning their posts I make sure to swear an extra bunch.

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda. The speakers frequently use code words or make up new words so they don't get demonetized, or get their videos taken down. Words like rape & feminist set off the censors. Its just very bizarre watching them wink and nod around these words. Its very reminiscent of your discussion about Chinese censorship. I always thought we in the Western world were better than that, but I guess not...

<edit>

Obviously, yes, we ought demonetize people using a platform to endorse rape.

The only discussions we need to be having about rape are how to prevent it, and explicitly in that context; and how to simulate it without threat to any person's true agency for the purposes of sexual illusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda. The speakers frequently use code words or make up new words so they don't get demonetized, or get their videos taken down. Words like rape & feminist set off the censors.
Rape and feminist... this is an odd pairing, especially when talking about using codes words to hide it.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,389
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Claim of anti-conservative bias by social media firms is baseless, report finds. New York University study: algorithms amplify rightwing voices

Republicans including Donald Trump have raged against Twitter and Facebook in recent months, alleging anti-conservative bias, censorship and a silencing of free speech. According to Disinformation expert Paul Barrett and researcher J Grant Sims found that far from suppressing conservatives, social media platforms have, through algorithms, amplified rightwing voices, “often affording conservatives greater reach than liberal or nonpartisan content creators”.

Barrett and Sims’s report comes as Republicans up their campaign against social media companies. Conservatives have long complained that platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube show bias against the right, laments which intensified when Trump was banned from all three platforms for inciting the attack on the US Capitol which left five people dead.

The NYU study, released by the Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, found that a claim of anti-conservative bias “is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it”.

“There is no evidence to support the claim that the major social media companies are suppressing, censoring or otherwise discriminating against conservatives on their platforms,” Barrett said. “In fact, it is often conservatives who gain the most in terms of engagement and online attention, thanks to the platforms’ systems of algorithmic promotion of content.”

The report found that Twitter, Facebook and other companies did not show bias when deleting incendiary tweets around the Capitol attack, as some on the right have claimed.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,508
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
To be fair, it's not Trausti I see whinging about curses here. It's Bomb. Hence why when I respond concerning their posts I make sure to swear an extra bunch.

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda. The speakers frequently use code words or make up new words so they don't get demonetized, or get their videos taken down. Words like rape & feminist set off the censors. Its just very bizarre watching them wink and nod around these words. Its very reminiscent of your discussion about Chinese censorship. I always thought we in the Western world were better than that, but I guess not...
<edit>

Obviously, yes, we ought demonetize people using a platform to endorse rape.

The only discussions we need to be having about rape are how to prevent it, and explicitly in that context; and how to simulate it without threat to any person's true agency for the purposes of sexual illusion.
This is insane. There is a censorship risk even if someone with a youtube channel focused around discussion of current events is reading a mainstream news article verbatim that contains the word "rape" or "feminist" (among many others). It is not an endorsement of rape we are talking about here! I have no problem with youtube censoring channels where people are "endorsing rape", or pedophelia, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,352
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.
It may be ok to unintentionally give offense. But only an asshole would say it is ok to deliberately give offense.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,719
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
To be fair, it's not Trausti I see whinging about curses here. It's Bomb. Hence why when I respond concerning their posts I make sure to swear an extra bunch.

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda. The speakers frequently use code words or make up new words so they don't get demonetized, or get their videos taken down. Words like rape & feminist set off the censors. Its just very bizarre watching them wink and nod around these words. Its very reminiscent of your discussion about Chinese censorship. I always thought we in the Western world were better than that, but I guess not...
<edit>

Obviously, yes, we ought demonetize people using a platform to endorse rape.

The only discussions we need to be having about rape are how to prevent it, and explicitly in that context; and how to simulate it without threat to any person's true agency for the purposes of sexual illusion.
This is insane. There is a censorship risk even if someone with a youtube channel focused around discussion of current events is reading a mainstream news article verbatim that contains the word "rape" or "feminist" (among many others). It is not an endorsement of rape we are talking about here! I have no problem with youtube censoring channels where people are "endorsing rape", or pedophelia, etc.
And those specific discussions can be done not-for-profit. There are lots of videos on YouTube discussing rape and feminism that don't get taken down, though which may get demonetized. Some of these things are not like the others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
This is insane. There is a censorship risk even if someone with a youtube channel focused around discussion of current events is reading a mainstream news article verbatim that contains the word "rape" or "feminist" (among many others). It is not an endorsement of rape we are talking about here! I have no problem with youtube censoring channels where people are "endorsing rape", or pedophelia, etc.
And those specific discussions can be done not-for-profit. There are lots of videos on YouTube discussing rape and feminism that don't get taken down, though which may get demonetized. Some of these things are not like the others.

So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right wing is using for words these days?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,442
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This is insane. There is a censorship risk even if someone with a youtube channel focused around discussion of current events is reading a mainstream news article verbatim that contains the word "rape" or "feminist" (among many others). It is not an endorsement of rape we are talking about here! I have no problem with youtube censoring channels where people are "endorsing rape", or pedophelia, etc.
Censorship risk in what form? Certainly a company that is advertising on YouTube would want a safe list for videos their ads are attached to. Do you have an algorithm that'll tell the difference? There is money in it for you if you can.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,728
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right left wing is using for words these days?
Fixed it for you.

<Politesse calling it censorship when people aren't paid for saying something>
No. It's censorship when a particular domain of knowledge is made illegal to teach for political reasons.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right left wing is using for words these days?
Fixed it for you.

<Politesse calling it censorship when people aren't paid for saying something>
No. It's censorship when a particular domain of knowledge is made illegal to teach for political reasons.

What? Like gay conversion therapy?
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right left wing is using for words these days?
Fixed it for you.

<Politesse calling it censorship when people aren't paid for saying something>
No. It's censorship when a particular domain of knowledge is made illegal to teach for political reasons.

What? Like gay conversion therapy?
Yes, if you were not allowed to say "gay conversion therapy" that would be censorship.
 
Top Bottom