Exactly what it says.
Because speech, discourse, is being manipulated in order to keep people from talking about (or believing) what other people don't want them talk about or believe. It's not removing content outright, it's more insidious and subtle. It's abusing loopholes.
When people like him are talking about fact checking as censorship, what they're really trying to say is that they believe they have the right to lie and get away with it.
By whom then?
Concrete examples, please. How it's more insidious? It seems pretty overt - adding a link, or addendum next to a statement. It doesn't censor the content, it doesn't alter it, it doesn't even hide and flag it. It's still there, in the open. It's technically no different that what we do here on this forum, quoting someone's post and arguing with it.
Yeah, and that's dangerous. Having the power to stop "subversives" and "deplorables" from ruining your carefully crafted narrative... Squash those pesky rebellions before they even begin by conditioning people to view those who you disapprove of as crackpot conspiracy theorists, or worse.
No, they control the conversation only in their facebook groups. Anywhere else, they get ridiculed, especially on reddit and twitter.
No, I'm not. I'm saying I don't trust any organization with the power to determine what is true and what is false.
Okay, so you see the danger. Great.
EXACTLY. For some strange reason they seem to think that calling an outright LIE an alternative fact it somehow is no longer a lie or something and how DARE anyone point out the truth because the truth would be oppressive and somehow censorship when that is not even the definition of the word but they think they can redefine words like they redefine facts so it doesn't matter what anything means anyways regardless.
By anyone with the means to do so.
Posts #249 and #252 contain examples.
en.wikipedia.org
I wonder what the Fact Checkers of MLK's day would be saying about him...
Oh, by the way, I read something in that Wikipedia article above that reminded me of what you said:
Wait... are you claiming that the attacks on MLK were the fault of the fact checkers?By anyone with the means to do so.
And yes, your example fits.
Posts #249 and #252 contain examples.
And then there's this:
COINTELPRO - Wikipedia
Under Methods:
I wonder what the Fact Checkers of MLK's day would be saying about him...
I'm not claiming anything. But we know that MLK was one of the FBI's targets. Subverting his message with FBI-funded or manipulated "fact-checkers" that claim he's a dangerous and violent radical would be an effective tactic, don't you think?
You don't have to blame them. You can think that they were just manipulated by the credible-looking lies that the FBI fed them. That's exactly why the power to declare what is or isn't a fact is so dangerous. You just have to manipulate the right people, and you have your very own propaganda machine.
The trend I notice over and over again is this idea that they can will facts into being, or conversely, deny them an existence. Literally every time I tried confronting an anti-trans bigot with the fact that multiple cultures around the world have acknowledged and accepted trans people for centuries, their response amounted to a handful of excuses about why those cultures don't count, biological essentialist talking points and most ominously the refrain that because these cutlures and populations were such small minorities of the global community, what they wanted was of no importance. The message was clear. It doesn't matter that the facts disagree with them. They believe they can decide what the facts are based on their feelings and then impose them on everyone else. Of course they keep accusing everybody else of trying to impose tyranny of the majority: it's what they're trying to accomplish and they don't want someone else to beat them to it.
Wake up, man! Haven't you ever thought about the newspaper obituaries? They just print this thing, and everyone agrees that person is dead. And yet, Elvis Presley appears in the alternative news regularly. But if you tell people about this, they laugh at you and say Elvis is dead. Why? Because it was in the mainstream media. They printed an obituary. And everyone just believed these so-called fact checkers! Now the King of Rock and Roll is forced to live as a ghost! Do you see what you've done in your sheeple-ness? Do you understand the power of cancel culture that is being wielded here? Don't be surprised if the next time you say something untoward about Wolf Blitzer, CNN will run a segment all about how your name is and always has been Percival Pitstains.
I'm sorry, but I've spent about 15 minutes here trying to work out what this line of argument over the last few pages of the thread is really about and where it's trying to go, and I'm pretty much coming up blank. It seems to be a list of truisms with nebulous arguments and no apparent aim.
How about we do it this way. What do you think you want from these probes into social media?
For example, one of the things Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit do is manipulate what is "Trending". That normally means that a lot of people are talking about a subject.
Yeah, that sort of thing was really annoying. I would get a ton of "recommended" videos on YouTube from US alt-right talking heads despite not being American, right wing, or watching that sort of thing to see what those mouth-breathers were on about. Thank god they fixed it.
... If your point is about controlling public discourse is dangerous, you should be as angry as Trump for trying to sign an order to erode legal protections that are the lifeblood to companies like Twitter. They would either be forced to regulate by the created governmental guidelines to keep in business and not sued every twenty four hours, or they would have to shut down. Which does a lot more to control public discourse than putting up a fact check.
It's almost like the argument is just an incoherent mess of talking points trying to justify the desire to lie to people and never be held accountable for it.
I don't agree with your summary of events, but that's beside the point.
It's almost as if the people who disagree with me WANT to be told what to think by corporations and governments, and WANT to enable them to control public discourse.
I don't think there are currently any laws against manipulating public discourse. Seems pretty unethical though.
USA
