1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[The New Yorker] Alex Jones, the First Amendment, and the Digital Public Square

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Aug 12, 2018.

Page 12 of 14
  1. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost be kind. be brave.
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,478
    Likes Received:
    17,182
    I agree this isn't really a freedom of speech issue. It's why I haven't spoken about it as such (I'm under no illusion that anyone has a "right" at present to use YouTube). It's an issue of what is best for the country, IMO. The more open our communication platforms are, the better off we are. The marketplace of ideas and the transfer of comms getting supercharged by social media has been a huge positive for us and I hope that continues. People like Carlos Maza remind me of the pearl clutching Christians from the mid 20th century who gave us such awesome crap like the FCC, ESRB, and the MPAA.
     
    #221 DonnyMost, Jun 9, 2019
    Cold Hard, mdrowe00, biff17 and 1 other person like this.
  2. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,972
    Likes Received:
    111,167
    are governments using the cover of private corporations to silence dissent, hate speech, p*rnography, etc? from a 2016 Columbia Journalism Review essay:

    Some governments are taking advantage of social media’s newfound power, pressuring them to further national security interests. In the US, that’s meant enlisting social media companies to help fight ISIS and other forms of extremism. Earlier this month, a bevy of Silicon Valley firms–among them Google, Facebook, and Apple–met with national security officials at the White House to discuss ways to fight terrorism online. Items on the agenda included a discussion on how to make it harder for terrorists “to leverage the internet to recruit, radicalize, and mobilize followers to violence,” according to a memo published by The Guardian.

    For the government, acting through social media can be a way to bypass due process. “If Congress passed a law trying to outlaw some of the content that the US government wants tech companies to delete and censor,” says Trevor Timm, director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and CJR columnist, “it would be struck down as unconstitutional.”

    York, of the EFF, says one of the goals of Online Censorship is to shed light on how content is moderated, as well as how social sites define terms like “hate speech” and “terrorism.” Much of social media’s editorial guidelines are a black box, inaccessible to the public since they belong to private companies.That lack of transparency means it’s unclear what factors go into the decision to take down a post. Among the data Online Censorship collects is the language of the removed post, whether the poster was an individual or an organization, and the reason given for the removal.

    In one case, Facebook removed a cartoon that was critical of Israel, implying that the nation silences criticism by labeling it as anti-Semitic, and suspended the associated account for three days. It was unclear whether the post was removed because of the cartoon itself or the accompanying post, and whether it had triggered an algorithmic response or had been reported by users. Additionally, says York, it’s not always possible to know if content on Facebook is taken down due to a government request or because a user violated the social giant’s terms of service.​

    https://www.cjr.org/analysis/censorship_in_the_social_media_age.php
     
    #222 Os Trigonum, Jun 9, 2019
    sirbaihu and dachuda86 like this.
  3. dachuda86

    dachuda86 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Messages:
    16,308
    Likes Received:
    3,580
    No doubt they collude further.
     
    #223 dachuda86, Jun 9, 2019
    sirbaihu likes this.
  4. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,972
    Likes Received:
    111,167
    how do the "private companies shouldn't be forced to do business with anyone they don't want to do business with" arguments square with the arguments, say, against the cake bakers who didn't want to make the cake for the gay wedding? seems to me that a lot of that controversy boiled down to: dammit, there are religious conservatives who own companies. How did this happen?
     
    #224 Os Trigonum, Jun 10, 2019
  5. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,301
    Likes Received:
    13,593

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968


    If you want to amend the acts to make Nazis a protected class, I'd love to see your sales pitch.
     
    #225 Ottomaton, Jun 10, 2019
  6. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,972
    Likes Received:
    111,167
    #226 Os Trigonum, Jun 10, 2019
  7. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost be kind. be brave.
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,478
    Likes Received:
    17,182
    I think the general sentiment is that...

    1) Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic and should therefore be a protected class
    2) Political affiliations/opinions are not immutable characteristics (and therefore should not be protected)

    Sidenote: I'm against the idea of "protected classes" altogether (or other "be nice to each other" laws), and while #1 is not codified in federal law yet, from a moral/fairness standpoint the argument for protecting sexual orientation holds a lot more water to me than the argument for protecting political leanings.
     
    #227 DonnyMost, Jun 10, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2019
    Os Trigonum likes this.
  8. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,972
    Likes Received:
    111,167
    I agree with you; but the specific analogy I am questioning here is the "private corporations should have the right to refuse service to whomever they want" argument. Forget sexual orientation now for a moment: does that argument hold up? and not necessarily aimed at you, this is a general question.
     
    #228 Os Trigonum, Jun 10, 2019
  9. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost be kind. be brave.
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,478
    Likes Received:
    17,182
    I think you're making the assumption that the "pro YouTube" crowd here would be OK with YouTube severing ties or demonetizing someone based on their gender, age, race, etc. I think most clearly would not be OK with that.


    Unless the person getting squashed was overtly conservative then yeah probably (lol I keed)
     
    #229 DonnyMost, Jun 10, 2019
    Os Trigonum likes this.
  10. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    34,748
    Likes Received:
    33,828
    Mimicry noted, but relevance not discerned. Religious conservatives have frequently owned companies, God knows (har, that was a fun one). Liberals and progressives are not usually the owners of capital in the nation's history. There are exceptions, including significant recent exceptions relevant to the thread and the modern attention economy. It's different than big oil, big pharma, or the defense industry, or even old school traditional publishing.

    Not sure I buy that a gay person's desire to buy a wedding cake to make merry is in any way equivalent to some guy's desire to be a content provider in order to make money. (That's leaving aside whether the biological fact (my view) of being gay is anything like the choice to act in a broadly offensive manner to other clients and users of the private service. "I just want to buy a cake from you and eat it privately with friends." =/= "I want to be a shock jock on your station and I want to get paid too.")

    Various colorful extremes aside, I still think it's a fascinating realm. I remain in favor of just super-clear terms of service that are enforced equitably. That would take some careful writing! Otherwise, I agree with those who say a Youtube has become a publisher, at some level choosing content that it "publishes" and thereby takes on the risks, liabilities, and upsets of a publisher.

    Another thing they could do would almost be wiki like. If enough people label your content "offensive," it stays up, but only users who have settings that "allow viewing offensive-rated content" would see it. Users could have a snowflake or unleaded setting where they just get videos of puppies, babies, Biden and Dole speeches, old sitcom reruns, and shriner's parades. But seriously, the settings could even have sub-areas: politics, race, violence, the wearing of ugg boots, you name it.
     
    #230 B-Bob, Jun 10, 2019
    mdrowe00, Kim, FranchiseBlade and 1 other person like this.
  11. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost be kind. be brave.
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,478
    Likes Received:
    17,182
    At their core, one scenario is a person wanting to exchange money for goods and services, the other scenario is a person wanting to exchange goods and services for money.
     
    #231 DonnyMost, Jun 10, 2019
    B-Bob likes this.
  12. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,972
    Likes Received:
    111,167
    but see, here is why I concentrated NOT on the customer's rights but rather on the rights of the corporation--which is what a majority of the arguments here seem to have been focused on. "Youtube has a right to deny Triumph of the Will and if you don't like it go start your own Youtube." That's a very different focus than looking at it from the aggrieved's side.

    I still don't think I buy the publisher analogy. I think content providers publish their videos and distribute them and/or make them available on Youtube. In this way Youtube functions more like the public library, or in the case of paid Youtube content, more like Barnes and Noble.

    interesting idea. just not sure I want to put freedom of expression issues up to a popular vote. this would be susceptible to the worst violations of the Rotten Tomatoes variety
     
    #232 Os Trigonum, Jun 10, 2019
    B-Bob likes this.
  13. dachuda86

    dachuda86 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Messages:
    16,308
    Likes Received:
    3,580
    I think your answering things without letting me respond... ok so not at all how I see things but I guess you would rather argue with the version of me in your head.

    I have a consistent principle that lines up with tort about this issue; specifically calls for violence and the credibility of it. That is how we decide because otherwise people have free speech. Not by comparing Isis... a terror group.. to neonazism which is an ideology... That is where you diverge from rationality. One is actively recruiting to and actively at war with the US. The other is an ideology and there are various groups that hate so and so and various groups of nazis. ISIS however is one group. Not really a clean comparision for this argument. Of course muddying the waters is a favorite SJW tactic to confuse people so I am not surprised.

    So no neonazis are not a group. ISIS is. If a group of neonazis makes war then there is a good reason to censor them and I am consistent in this idea. As I said before... terror groups need to be dealt with. Ones like Isis... antifa... etc.

    Now, groups who do hate... like KKK for example, have had their free speech upheld by even the ACLU. Why is that?
     
    #233 dachuda86, Jun 11, 2019
  14. sirbaihu

    sirbaihu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,517
    Likes Received:
    2,851
    I'm getting the impression that almost all posters here do support censorship . . . of ISIS etc.
     
    #234 sirbaihu, Jun 11, 2019
  15. JayGoogle

    JayGoogle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    50,216
    Likes Received:
    40,953
    I'm sorry but your logic on this makes no sense.

    Neo-nazis are a group and ISIS does represent an ideology.

    The only person muddying the waters here is you as the question I asked could have been answered yes or no.

    Amazing.

    So, ISIS and Antifa are terror groups but white nationalists groups aren't? Tell me when's the last time someone shot up a synagogue in Antifa's name? Or a Mosque? Or a church? Interesting that Antifa is a terror group to you but all of this can be ignored I guess.

    I mean that's just amazing to me. That you believe antifa is a terrorist group that needs to be dealt with but white nationalists 'race war now' groups are fine.
     
    #235 JayGoogle, Jun 11, 2019
    biff17 likes this.
  16. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost be kind. be brave.
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,478
    Likes Received:
    17,182
    This is doomed to fail (because social media is very much a winner-take-all marketplace), but I'm glad to see somebody trying to offer solutions. P.S. I hate linking to freeper crap like Newsbusters but this is literally the only site carrying the story right now.

    Jordan Peterson Announces Free Speech Platform ‘Thinkspot’

    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/t...HO8XIuSPuHSyVL3D-5DKI-gwdxHkEp-bGdPM-XfCq87Jo
     
    #236 DonnyMost, Jun 12, 2019
  17. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,916
    Likes Received:
    36,790
    The grifter Peterson seeing a market for self percieved disadvantaged 15-25 year old white males. Good for him. Shame on the people duped by him.
     
    #237 fchowd0311, Jun 12, 2019
  18. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost be kind. be brave.
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,478
    Likes Received:
    17,182
    I'm guessing this is a gigantic money pit. If you think Peterson is doing what he is doing for money, then you probably aren't paying close attention.
     
    #238 DonnyMost, Jun 12, 2019
  19. biff17

    biff17 Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2018
    Messages:
    2,901
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    I noticed he has yet to respond to this.

    LOL.
     
    #239 biff17, Jun 12, 2019
    JayGoogle likes this.
  20. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,916
    Likes Received:
    36,790
    He exactly is doing this for money. His entire rise to fame hinged on a bad faith argument regarding the Canadian C16 bill that was meant to rile up angry young white males. He knows his audience very well.

    I suggest watching this video:



    Peterson is the Patron Saint of Anti-SJW grifting.
     
    #240 fchowd0311, Jun 12, 2019
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 12 of 14

Share This Page

Toggle Width
Style
ClutchFans Original

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now