I'm showing you a prominent democratic operative who runs a think tank cheering on censorship on a large social media platform.
What? Are you fucking kidding me? New York Times posts an article advocating against free speech.
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
USA
And? You are still in QAnon territory here with your evidence of a larger conspiracy. That isn't evidence of anything happening at all.
By UK standards the BBC is reasonably fair. But UK standards are shit, and so is the BBC (for news at least).
Quite frankly, people in Britain showed almost zero understanding of the actual immigration laws as they stood before the referendum, and they routinely massively overestimated the actual scale of immigration. The perception was lightyears away from reality.
A complete lack of understanding and knowledge, intentionally fostered by a hostile press and exploited by political opportunists, led to the Brexit mess.
Oh, hey, you're not arguing against anything I've said. Again.
I think Danmark Radio/DR(Danish Radio) does fairly well when it comes to being unbiased and fair.
Quick overview at the bottom of the page.
DR (broadcaster) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And Michael Rothstein is an ass who hates everything that even implies the introduction of religion into a pre-existing structure(He taught several courses I took), he is, however reasonable correct in his opinion, though no consequences were ever really felt from the christian values thing.
You were saying that this was evidence that there is an intent by the "elite" of shutting everyone else up. That isn't evidence of any of this at all. You said this was one here and posted that from twitter when none of that is evidence of any of this. Saying that there is intent by the elite to shut everyone else up IS what is over there in QAnon territory because we have no evidence of this actually being the case at all.
Disinformation by it's definition means it is a lie, that it is a deliberate intent to mislead. We have abundant data that this is harmful to society as a whole and endangers people's lives. Combating disinformation isn't censorship, it is no different that banning someone from screaming fire in a theater or bomb in an airport when there is no fire or Bomb. We have plenty of laws against intentional lying. Stolen Valor, fraud, libel and slander for example. There is no public benefit of intentionally lying and misleading the public. Protecting the people from that only serves to benefit the people. IF we hold politicians to that standard, we would have a hell of a lot less corruption in politics. In fact, we really should have that as a vital part of our anti corruption legislation in regards to regulating our regulators. We can actually prove a public benefit from expecting our politicians to tell the truth.
I am not seeing anyone calling for governments banning dissenting opinions or being able to just ban content at will, however, disinformation, by it's definition is intentional lies, and the only purpose of promoting lies is to deceive, scam, con, dupe the public, which really should be considered fraud in the first place. That serves no legitimate purpose.
Last edited:
That's not superficial and surface. That's life. That's the everyday reality people tend to care about most.
The average Muslim wants a nice spouse and a nice job so they can live together in a nice house with a nice garden, bring up zero to several nice children who do well and go on to their own nice lives. They want to get back in the evening, eat a nice meal and sit back on a nice sofa and watch some nice programmes on their 60" LCD TV, and at the weekend go to the park for a nice walk and look at some nice flowers, and in the Summer go on nice holidays to nice places in the sun. With variations, that's basically what everyone wants most.
And what, inside he's going to be silently raging and plotting to bring down democracy because of some iffy interpretation of his holy text? I don't think so.
So you mean that "Enlightenment values" are too weak and unpersuasive to stand opposition, so we have to protect them? Firstly, that doesn't sound to me like they're very good. Secondly, sounds to me like we need to shut down neo-Nazis, Leninists and Kremlin-backed TV channels for our own good, because free speech isn't going to survive them, either.
Do you ever think about what you say or is it always just kneejerk screaming?
First off, it's not 'the government is in charge of *the* news'. It doesn't make other news vanish. Secondly my point is NPR exists and is the sort of thing that falls under it. Instead of even addressing the current example that exists you jump to oooh but Russia and China.
Kind of. NPR is an odd example as the vast bulk of its funding is from broadcast licenses paid by local affiliates, which in turn are often paid by donations. Government funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a small fraction of NPR and other PBS affiliates funding.
Voice of America is a more apt example of state journalism/media in functioning democracies. Up until 2017, it was reflexively non-political in it's editorial approach (and to some degree it still is) and is overseen by a non-partisan board of governors. Due to laws against government propaganda, it is not directly broadcasted in the US outside of the internet (starting in 2013) and has several strong institutional policies designed to minimize political interference and propaganda stories. It's probably best known for creating and using "learning/special English" as part of it's broadcasting languages, a special variant of the English language for ESL and people's with minimal English-language skills.
Huh! Noted. I still think like, increase funding to NPR and PBS and such things would help fall under that suggestion the article made. Didn't know about Voice of America prior to this which makes sense given you just mentioned it's limited to the Internet in the US.
Isn’t VoA a Cold War era propaganda relic?
Edit: yeah, to my knowledge Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty fall under its banner which were explicitly political and setup as anti-communist propaganda outlets.
I'm always down for increasing CPB funding and grants, especially as local news gets hollowed out. I'm generally more skeptical of direct government employment for journalists as funding priorities can skew coverage or create gaps.
Kind of. One of the main means VOA has managed to stay around is a approach to journalistic integrity that is some of the highest in the world, with several key internal policies and values that make it stand out from private news companies. At the core of this is the following paragraph in the VOA charter, which has been part of VOA since 1960 and was formally signed into law in 1972:
As a value proposition, it is propaganda in the sense that it's trying to put forth the best representation of US journalism and journalistic values, but the information provided itself is considered very reliable. The end of the cold war did not reduce the need for such reliability.Expert from VOA Charter said:
It is if you're preventing people from posting a link to speech. Disinformation (or something accused of being disinformation) is speech. And Neera Tanden and other elites support Twitter and Facebook and Youtube and so on utilizing their power to arbitrarily decide that speech cannot be spread on their platforms, which can impact disinformation, information, opinion, whatever.
Also, it's not "QAnon" to just assume that there are elites that want to shut the little people up. Of course there are, don't be basic.
Your stance here is ultimately no less capitalist than the counter. If the owners do or do not police their platforms, they will be vehicles of suffering as a predictable consequence of their neo-imperialist function. There is nowhere to define a space of “good behavior” for these guys. The issue is not in their malformed liberal ideals, it is in their dogged pursuit of growth (perhaps a better description of the fundamental goal of Silicon Valley bullshit these days than profit). There must be new markets, they must be conquered, there must be new uses, they must be propagated, there must be more time, energy, money, dedicated to the “platform.” The suffering being perpetuated here is not a consequence of elites trying to control us, it’s far more mundane and thus insidious. It is a consequence of eternal devotion to the principle of infinite growth.
Ok, so Facebook doesn’t hire moderators in most foreign markets. In those markets there is a tendency to have large scale calls for ethnic cleansing and misinformation campaigns on the website. But, the lack of moderation isn’t particularly the cause of the problem, but a mutual effect of that cause. See, why are these misinformation campaigns so successful in countries where presumably less people have access to Facebook? Because of those who have access to Facebook, that’s all they have access to. Facebook (and similar platforms) partner with cellular companies in the global south to expand their markets, allowing you to have infinite access to Facebook as part of your cellular contract, but not to articles or videos linked on Facebook. This creates a very easy space for disinformation campaigns. As part of this rapid neo-colonialism, Facebook also very rarely hires moderators in these colonial markets, or people who speak those languages, but this is a mutual consequence of the same issue. It’s no different than Google doing an adpocalypse on YouTube to maintain their stranglehold on the online ad market. The cause is not a belief or disbelief in the validity of policing these platforms. That’s absolutely irrelevant. The cause is Silicon Valley’s neo-colonialism.
"speech" =\= protected speech. Stolen Valor isn't protected speech. Fraud isn't protected speech. Fighting words isn't protected speech. Libel and slander isn't protected speech. Courts have ordered cease and desist on pizzagate "links to speech" and Sandy hook truthers " links to speech".. None of that is protected speech because it is intention for existing is to cause harm, mislead and disinform others. None of that exists to stifle dissenting opinions, it is to prevent fraud and misleading people and to prevent harm.
That's really quite irrelevant considering that Twitter et al. don't have (and shouldn't have) the authority to decide what is or isn't protected speech.