The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I have very limited time for IRL reasons but I'll make a comment here.
Bob is technically correct, but wrong in a practical and moral sense. The reason why "censorship" is defined this way is because at the time we were granted the right to free speech modern technology and the power of current information technology was not even considered. It was believed that only a government could effectively shut someone down. The argument that private platforms have the right to control who and what is said is by definition repugnant because what this means is that your giving more power over a fundamental right of other people to express themselves than the duly elected government. What's more the ability of private citizens to control the right of expression of other private citizens for all intents and purposes leads to the suppression of political and social voices, and preventing that was the primary purpose of this being the very first right people in the US were granted. Simply put when you engage in controlling someone else's access to media platforms, effectively shutting down any political or social position you find offensive or disagree with, that represents a problem. To be frank few people, if anyone, really care that much about people discussing fantasy, science fiction, or other things, all of this comes down to social and political commentary.
Right now you see people like Bob making academic arguments in defense of the control of platforms and claiming "the problem isn't solvable anyway" because the current status quo favors them. If your politically to the left in the US right now, there is no real reason to want a change. Ironically the shoe was on the other foot decades ago with the right wing controlling most of the platforms, this however changed, and opened the door, because people were convinced that it was wrong, and you started seeing things like an "equal time" standard applied to most platforms which has since been done away with. Basically it was wrong then, and it's wrong now, no matter what kinds of arguments you make trying to sell it one way or another. Sure maybe "censorship" doesn't apply by it's literal definition, but then again the evolution of language and popular use might very well have changed the term by this point, although English majors and the like are always slow to accept that.
That said, it does show that Gamersgate is at least having some impact, given that Bob and a few other people have at least felt the need to try and defend themselves, that said, I do not expect any real changes. To put things into perspective remember guys like Bob, and most websites and forums for that matter, have a vested interest in preserving the current status quo due to it giving them power, and of course benefitting their own social and political beliefs. Imagine for example what The Internet would be like for example if those running articles were required to give equal time to opposing points of view, at least putting in an effort. It could be done, but it certainly wouldn't work out in the favor of guys like Bob.
That said, I do not expect any kind of radical changes anytime in the near future. Nor do I expect much agreement from the general population of this site.
At any rate, perhaps I'll have time to go on another day-long posting spurt or two in a few weeks, things have gotten a bit hectic IRL, which I saw coming and mentioned in some of my early posts.
Bob is technically correct, but wrong in a practical and moral sense. The reason why "censorship" is defined this way is because at the time we were granted the right to free speech modern technology and the power of current information technology was not even considered. It was believed that only a government could effectively shut someone down. The argument that private platforms have the right to control who and what is said is by definition repugnant because what this means is that your giving more power over a fundamental right of other people to express themselves than the duly elected government. What's more the ability of private citizens to control the right of expression of other private citizens for all intents and purposes leads to the suppression of political and social voices, and preventing that was the primary purpose of this being the very first right people in the US were granted. Simply put when you engage in controlling someone else's access to media platforms, effectively shutting down any political or social position you find offensive or disagree with, that represents a problem. To be frank few people, if anyone, really care that much about people discussing fantasy, science fiction, or other things, all of this comes down to social and political commentary.
Right now you see people like Bob making academic arguments in defense of the control of platforms and claiming "the problem isn't solvable anyway" because the current status quo favors them. If your politically to the left in the US right now, there is no real reason to want a change. Ironically the shoe was on the other foot decades ago with the right wing controlling most of the platforms, this however changed, and opened the door, because people were convinced that it was wrong, and you started seeing things like an "equal time" standard applied to most platforms which has since been done away with. Basically it was wrong then, and it's wrong now, no matter what kinds of arguments you make trying to sell it one way or another. Sure maybe "censorship" doesn't apply by it's literal definition, but then again the evolution of language and popular use might very well have changed the term by this point, although English majors and the like are always slow to accept that.
That said, it does show that Gamersgate is at least having some impact, given that Bob and a few other people have at least felt the need to try and defend themselves, that said, I do not expect any real changes. To put things into perspective remember guys like Bob, and most websites and forums for that matter, have a vested interest in preserving the current status quo due to it giving them power, and of course benefitting their own social and political beliefs. Imagine for example what The Internet would be like for example if those running articles were required to give equal time to opposing points of view, at least putting in an effort. It could be done, but it certainly wouldn't work out in the favor of guys like Bob.
That said, I do not expect any kind of radical changes anytime in the near future. Nor do I expect much agreement from the general population of this site.
At any rate, perhaps I'll have time to go on another day-long posting spurt or two in a few weeks, things have gotten a bit hectic IRL, which I saw coming and mentioned in some of my early posts.
And a part that used to be, and still technically is, forbidden by law because it is antithetical to the aims of capitalism. What runs our economy now is not capitalism as it was conceived, just as no communist country is a communism as it was conceived. What runs our economy now is a corporate oligarchy. An oligarchy that, had certain laws not been removed from the system or rewritten, could never have gained power because the government would have the means and authority to restrict that kind of activity.The Deadpool said:
But that's not a problem of capitalism. That's a problem of society in general. There is no society in the world that has not, given enough time, gone lax in its own laws, become lazy and ultimately set up its own deconstruction. It's never not happened. That's why Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must sometimes be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Corruption is a constant thing, whereas our attention is limited, so it eventually gains a foothold, no matter how hard you try. Everything breaks down over time and if you don't repair them, they fall apart.
There is no French race it's an ethnicity but Racism isn't defined just by race it's also colour, descent, national and ethnic origin. Though xenophobia is a better term for a German person being prejudiced against a French person.TheKasp said:
Though in Europe most of it is banter rather than mean spirited (unless footballs involved) as lets face it with all the hundreds of years of different European wars taking the piss out of other countries is just normal.
Did Bob just use the Dixie Chicks to segway into a not-so-subtle justification of the past sh*t most of us are kind of bored with now?
Bob, just go back to being a geek! We love it, you love it...
Bob, just go back to being a geek! We love it, you love it...
Did you know that Quinoa was the cultural staple food in some South American countries like Peru/Bolivia/Ecuador but now because all you latte sipping hippies are eating so much of it they can no longer afford it? For the average Bolivian the food they grew up eating now costs more than chicken. Which obviously they can't afford to eat everyday like in America.
Moviebob why is your cursewords coutn reduced now, and the few remaining ones get beeped out? In Transformeers 2 review they were not, and other Escapists' cursewords are not beeped out to this very day, such as Yahtzee or Sterlingjim.
Government in the case of censorship is synonymous with "those in power". Just because it isn't classified as a government doesn't mean it can't censor. Just because it doesn't have a police force or can do so via the barrel of a gun if needed doesn't mean it can't censor.
The use of power, not rhetoric, to remove someone's ability to express their views is censorship.
That being said, not all censorship is bad. And what is bad is subjective.
The use of power, not rhetoric, to remove someone's ability to express their views is censorship.
That being said, not all censorship is bad. And what is bad is subjective.
I have to be with Bob on this one, just because you have the right to free speech, that doesn't mean you have the right to a platform to speak it from. As backwards and stupid as this may sound, I don't have to listen to what you have to say. I have the right to walk away, and I certainly have the right to say you aren't allowed to bring your speech into my area. You can't come into my house and tell me what I have to think.
However, there are still forms of censorship that happen outside of government issued censorship. The DDOS attacks against certain people, the copyright claims pulling videos down from youtube, or calling in threats of violence to prevent speakers from speaking. These are going into someone else's house and preventing them from using their own platform to speak on.
And as for all the people talking about the right and wrong issues, well, there really isn't such a thing. There is no black and white, this is right, this is wrong, kind of answer to this. It's a grey area, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise that there is some simple answer to it all.
However, there are still forms of censorship that happen outside of government issued censorship. The DDOS attacks against certain people, the copyright claims pulling videos down from youtube, or calling in threats of violence to prevent speakers from speaking. These are going into someone else's house and preventing them from using their own platform to speak on.
And as for all the people talking about the right and wrong issues, well, there really isn't such a thing. There is no black and white, this is right, this is wrong, kind of answer to this. It's a grey area, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise that there is some simple answer to it all.
I think that the "real life" definition of censorship doesn't have to be just the government censoring people. If dev deletes all of the negative reviews from their forums, it could also be considered censorship. So another practical definition might be "a small group of people in power preventing the voices of a larger group from being heard".
People overuse the word "censorship" but I believe that they have genuine concerns.
The refusal to allow criticism is seen by many to be "censorship". Technically it is but there's a difference between Feminist Frequency disallowing comments and totalitarian regimes sending anyone that speaks ill of their government to death camps.
But I understand the frustration if one side isn't allowed to criticise. It's made me lose my temper before, admittedly.
The refusal to allow criticism is seen by many to be "censorship". Technically it is but there's a difference between Feminist Frequency disallowing comments and totalitarian regimes sending anyone that speaks ill of their government to death camps.
But I understand the frustration if one side isn't allowed to criticise. It's made me lose my temper before, admittedly.
You know when a private person, group or company says that you can not say what you want at their forum: that is not censorship ... ever. Never has EA or Levis Jeans or a radio station ever had anyone arrested, deny them the freedom of movement or life. IF Group A say you have to do it this way, you can say F-U and go over to group B or C or till you find a venue that lets you say what you want.
The Government can levee fines, they can seize your land and or your possessions, your personal papers, or even take your life. To fight the government you have to have a lawyer go in front of a judge to explain why you should get your stuff back. And you can just decide you don't like it here in group A; tough because there is no group B to move on too.
No matter what a group or company says or does, you do not have to associate with anyone you do not wish too. The government is a different animal, if you like your freedom, you have to obey the laws.
The Government can levee fines, they can seize your land and or your possessions, your personal papers, or even take your life. To fight the government you have to have a lawyer go in front of a judge to explain why you should get your stuff back. And you can just decide you don't like it here in group A; tough because there is no group B to move on too.
No matter what a group or company says or does, you do not have to associate with anyone you do not wish too. The government is a different animal, if you like your freedom, you have to obey the laws.
I tend to be hugely anti censorship, and have fought a lot against it all my life. There are still a few areas where censorship is actually needed. So the first one is stated in the Constitution, and that is no slander. You should not be allowed to run around and spread out right false hoods about someone. The funny thing about this is how much more prevalent such an issue was back when they wrote the Constitution. We tend to think that the current political scene is negative, but let me tell its a joke compared to what it used to be.
The second is exploitation of children, IE child pornography which is incredibly fucked up, and is obviously illegal.
The third is terrorism, IE making a bomb threat (or just threats in general).
After that it should be a total free for all, swearing, nudity, violence, punk rock, hip hop, Nazism, racism, sexism, conservatism, liberalism, and on and on. Let that crap be screamed to the heavens, and let anyone scream back.
The second is exploitation of children, IE child pornography which is incredibly fucked up, and is obviously illegal.
The third is terrorism, IE making a bomb threat (or just threats in general).
After that it should be a total free for all, swearing, nudity, violence, punk rock, hip hop, Nazism, racism, sexism, conservatism, liberalism, and on and on. Let that crap be screamed to the heavens, and let anyone scream back.
I'm not american, I always thought people already know what censorship is. Live a year in china and you'll know exactly what is censorship and what isn't.
I'm really tired of the semantic distinction between government censorship and private/public censorship.
The law of the first amendment is in place to protect citizens from tyranny and injustice, the principle of free speech is to allow anyone and everyone - up to and including minorities - a chance to speak and be heard.
To say you support the principle of free speech because it protects people from the government but then be completely unwilling to participate in, or even oppose free speech or artistic expression when it comes to literally anything else makes you seem at the very least hypocritical.
And on the topic of, oh, say recent controversies in gaming? It doesn't help that both sides of the debate are claiming they're being censored, while the people in power in the media are the only ones with the power to censor.
The law of the first amendment is in place to protect citizens from tyranny and injustice, the principle of free speech is to allow anyone and everyone - up to and including minorities - a chance to speak and be heard.
To say you support the principle of free speech because it protects people from the government but then be completely unwilling to participate in, or even oppose free speech or artistic expression when it comes to literally anything else makes you seem at the very least hypocritical.
And on the topic of, oh, say recent controversies in gaming? It doesn't help that both sides of the debate are claiming they're being censored, while the people in power in the media are the only ones with the power to censor.