Censorship

[AUFAN78 3,894]

“Of course, Twitter is a private company,” Navalny continued “But we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state’s best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship.”

https://nypost.com/2021/01/09/russian-dissident-alexei-navalny-blasts-twitter-for-trump-ban/

[AUFAN78 3,894]

In the warped moral universe of pre-emptive, precautionary censorship being built by our tech overlords, that’s where. Strikingly, Twitter says its censorship of the president is based on how other people might read and interpret his words. It says its censorious motivation is ‘specifically’ the question of ‘how [Trump’s tweets] are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter’. Trump’s comments ‘must be read’ in the broader context of how certain statements ‘can be mobilised by different audiences’, Twitter decrees. So Trump’s words, strictly speaking, are not the problem; it’s the possibility, the risk, that someone, somewhere might interpret them in a particular way.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/09/the-woke-purge/

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

“Of course, Twitter is a private company,” Navalny continued “But we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state’s best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship.”

https://nypost.com/2021/01/09/russian-dissident-alexei-navalny-blasts-twitter-for-trump-ban/

Things that don't happen in China or Russia:

Banning the social media accounts of the Soviet premier or of Chairman Xi.  The very fact that a private company can and did ban the President of the country tells you how free things really are.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

This is a wakeup call. It’s past time for Americans to take our power back from politicians. Peacefully! 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1347524609701195777.html

[homersapien 11,361]

13 hours ago, GoAU said:

Are you REALLY implying that the BLM protests were peaceful?   How many business were looted, burned, and people assaulted?  

I said 98% of them were peaceful.  How many black people have been killed by the police?

You must be joking when you said that Pelosi, Harris, and Biden would condemn rioting.  They had all summer to do so, but instead merely tried to justify it, claim is was “mostly peaceful “ as buildings literally burned in the background, or just stick their heads....... in the sand.  

No I am not joking, and yes they did condemn rioting and violence:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fact-check-democrats-have-condemned-violence-linked-protests/3317862001/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/30/pelosi-condemns-violent-actions-of-antifa-protesters/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pelosi-condemns-looting-starting-fires-but-calls-peaceful-protests-the-essence-of-democracy/ar-BB199ERB

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-kamala-harris-late-show-rio/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-she-supports-protests-not-riots-in-late-show-clip-idUSKBN27E34P

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-harris/kamala-harris-condemns-looting-violence-in-wake-of-police-shooting-idUSKBN25N344

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/07/facebook-posts/quotes-4-democrats-twisted-make-it-look-they-endor/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-protests-arent-going-stop/5678687002/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/07/fact-check-joe-biden-has-condemned-violent-protests-several-times/6576824002/

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-biden-condemn-violence/fact-check-joe-biden-has-condemned-violent-protests-in-the-last-three-months-idUSKBN25V2O1

https://www.wral.com/fact-check-trump-wrongly-says-biden-hasn-t-condemned-violent-groups/19278112/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/30/biden-condemns-portland-violence-goes-after-trump.html

People are allowed to believe whatever they would like - no crime in belief.  I’ll be perfectly honest, there are LOTS of irregularities with this election, that is undisputed.  Whether it resulted in a change of outcome remains to be seen, and likely never will.  

No, there were not "LOTs" of irregularities.  Probably no more than in any other election.  And certainly not enough to alter the outcome. (Which is exactly why Trump's lawsuits claiming otherwise were summarily dismissed.  Do you consider the court system to be part of the "deep state"?)
 

Once again - no equivalence here.  One side had a single event that resulted in a small percentage of participants committing an absolutely heinous and illegal act that resulted directly in the loss of two lives.  The other side had a summer full of rioting, arson, looting, property damage and numerous lives lost.  Both parties had leaders fail to control the situation. But regardless of that, the individuals on both sides that committed the crimes are 100% responsible for their own actions.

You apparently watch too much right wing news and talk radio. That's a hilariously biased characterization.  It sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say.

Trump and the "brown shirt" elements of the MAGAs just attempted a coup. 

The BLM movement was a understandable reaction to overt police violence against black people and 98% of the resulting protests were peaceful.

 

 

[homersapien 11,361]

4 hours ago, McLoofus said:

93% of them have been peaceful. Someone has done the research. Don't have it handy now. And it doesn't matter because our QMorons don't believe facts anyway. 

Several sources do cite 93%

Here's another source with a higher estimate:

Political science professor Jeremy Pressman is co-founder of the Crowd Counting Consortium (CCC), which collects publicly available data on political crowds reported in the United States, including marches, protests, strikes, demonstrations, riots, and other actions. The CCC findings have been updated in a series of stories in “The Monkey Cage” blog at The Washington Post, which describes its goal as using the discipline of political science to “make sense of the circus that is politics.”

While the summer of 2020 experienced 100 days of violence and destruction in cities, according to the the U.S Department of Homeland Security, the most recent CCC study of 7,305 separate events in May and June suggests that 96.3% of events involved no property damage or police injuries and 97.7% of events had no injuries reported. Pressman spoke with UConn Today about the new report.

https://today.uconn.edu/2020/10/study-2020-protests-shows-difference-reality-perception/

I think it's safe to say it was over 90%.

I can remember the race riots of earlier times in which the body counts and rioting were much worse.

[homersapien 11,361]

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Also, it should be pointed out that countless ties have been shown between elements of law enforcement and various white supremacist/alt-right organizations, un- (not well-) regulated militia, etc. The spike in hate crimes since trump took office is significant and well documented. The conversations among these people that include discussing and planning many more events than just this one are massive in number and reach. The threats of violence levied against those with dissenting opinions are incalculable. There was a semi-successful attempt to raid the Georgia state capitol.

@GoAU, it's wildly inaccurate and ignorant to pretend that this one, massive, unprecedentedly vile and irredeemable act of treason and violence happened in a vacuum. 

And to think that it is all based off the ranting and obvious lies of a known con man. 

Not just Georgia.  There were attacks across the nation sparked by this:

In the midst of the unprecedented assault on the United States Capitol by Trump supporters, where at least one person has been shot and reportedly died, protests by pro-Trump sympathizers have also erupted in several other cities across the United States. 

A speech by President Donald Trump to his supporters—after months of trafficking in election conspiracy theories and baseless claims of election fraud—culminated in the storming of the Capitol building Wednesday afternoon. It took place while lawmakers inside had begun the official certification of electoral college votes for President-elect Joe Biden. A large group of protesters had gathered there following Trump’s speech, and eventually broke into the building, prompting the evacuation of members of the House and Senate. 

As news of the takeover in Washington, DC, spread, likeminded pro-Trump demonstrators gathered in multiple cities across the US, including Salem, Austin, Sacramento, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Olympia, Columbus, and Topeka.

The Sacramento Police tweeted early in the afternoon: “Heavy police presence remains in the area of the Capitol. Some arrests have been made for individuals carrying pepper spray.” They also tweeted that reports of physical altercations between two groups of demonstrators have been reported, and that officers were attempting to keep the groups separate.

Heavy police presence remains in the area of the Capitol. Some arrests have been made for individuals carrying pepper spray. pic.twitter.com/PpMF8FgU9s

— Sacramento Police (@SacPolice) January 6, 2021

Far-right Trump supporters also gathered at the Oregon Capitol building in Salem to protest the certification. Oregon State Police tweeted early this morning that protesters were expected, and later reported a group of protesters were on the move throughout the city.

#trafficalert #salemoregon UPDATE at 1245: A spontaneous group has started to march eastbound on State ST from Riverfront Park. SPD is monitoring the activity. Motorists in the area should be aware of the pedestrian activity, or if at all possible avoid the area at this time. pic.twitter.com/GOOTWcvMtm

— Salem Police Department (@SalemPoliceDept) January 6, 2021

An estimated 300 people protested at the Texas Capitol building in Austin, but the building was closed shortly after protesters stormed the Capitol building in Washington, DC, according to the Texas Tribune. In Atlanta, the secretary of state’s office was also evacuated as a precaution, while armed protesters gathered outside the Capitol building.

Trump supporters also took to the streets in Los Angeles in a demonstration that was later declared an unlawful assembly. 

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/01/trump-supporters-spread-chaos-to-state-capitals/

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Several sources do cite 93%

Here's another source with a higher estimate:

Political science professor Jeremy Pressman is co-founder of the Crowd Counting Consortium (CCC), which collects publicly available data on political crowds reported in the United States, including marches, protests, strikes, demonstrations, riots, and other actions. The CCC findings have been updated in a series of stories in “The Monkey Cage” blog at The Washington Post, which describes its goal as using the discipline of political science to “make sense of the circus that is politics.”

While the summer of 2020 experienced 100 days of violence and destruction in cities, according to the the U.S Department of Homeland Security, the most recent CCC study of 7,305 separate events in May and June suggests that 96.3% of events involved no property damage or police injuries and 97.7% of events had no injuries reported. Pressman spoke with UConn Today about the new report.

https://today.uconn.edu/2020/10/study-2020-protests-shows-difference-reality-perception/

I think it's safe to say it was over 90%.

I can remember the race riots of earlier times in which the body counts and rioting were much worse.

And, of course, unlike all the baseless claims of Soros-paid bad actors involved in what happened at the Capitol, we know that much of the violence and crime that occurred during the BLM riots actually was instigated by alt-right juggalos.

Quote

Experts say that in many states, far-right extremists, fresh from recruiting at “open states” rallies during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, continue to inject themselves into the protests, creating a potential powder keg as they mix with Black Lives Matter demonstrators.

What makes the situation so volatile, those monitoring the protests say, is that there are so many agendas at play that it’s hard to tell who’s on what side. In some cases, they say they’re seeing a bizarre alignment between those on the far right, such as militias and the Boogalooers, and Black Lives Matter advocates protesting the death of George Floyd, with anger at police and the government being the common thread.

Devin Burghart, president of the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights, said his organization has found evidence of Boogaloo and other far-right extremist groups at 40 protests related to Floyd’s death, including some in Kansas City and Wichita.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article243553662.html

[caleb1633 1,418]

22 hours ago, Leftfield said:

If I were encouraging people to take physical action against the government based on a huge pack of lies, I would absolutely expect you to take away my platform. 

Two notes: 1) Private companies refusing to sanction the operation of these platforms in no way violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to government restriction of free speech, 2) Even the First Amendment has limits. Promotion of illegal activity is not covered.

I don't think this analysis holds. Yes, they are private platforms in a sense, but they are traveling on an internet that we publically financed the construction of, and they function as kind of a public square. This is where the Constitution shows its age a bit. The founders had the foresight to provide protections against government incursion, but not against incursion from the private sector and entities that have the potential to hold more power than the government itself does in certain respects. In this case, it's our right to freedom of speech. While much of what is being censored right now is information that we'd all rather not see, there becomes a danger that handing over the keys to these platforms to censor as they see fit is going to eventually lead to censorship of anything that isn't convenient to them, preventing necessary and valuable public dialogue from taking place.

[McLoofus 35,182]

16 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

While much of what is being censored right now is information that we'd all rather not see, there becomes a danger that handing over the keys to these platforms to censor as they see fit is going to eventually lead to censorship of anything that isn't convenient to them, preventing necessary and valuable public dialogue from taking place.

If the dialogue is necessary and valuable, then it should be able to find purchase elsewhere. 

Perfect example, as others have said, of a situation where the free market should be the answer. 

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

14 hours ago, GoAU said:

I am not defending those who stormed the Capitol, but I am pointing out the irony and double standard that you seem to have missed.

With regard to social media platforms I have to disagree here.  The social media platforms have no consistent standards at all.  It is all one sided and not fair and balanced.  It’s a private company so they get to do what they want, right?  Amazon shut down Parler over the weekend for some reason and they are suing.

This is not censorship, it is de-platforming who disagrees with you.  When it is completely done we all will be happy as there will not be any discontent.  What a wonderful world.  Then it will be state run propaganda.  Yes, freedom of the press is a 1st Amendment right too.

[Leftfield 2,593]

25 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

I don't think this analysis holds. Yes, they are private platforms in a sense, but they are traveling on an internet that we publically financed the construction of, and they function as kind of a public square. This is where the Constitution shows its age a bit. The founders had the foresight to provide protections against government incursion, but not against incursion from the private sector and entities that have the potential to hold more power than the government itself does in certain respects. In this case, it's our right to freedom of speech. While much of what is being censored right now is information that we'd all rather not see, there becomes a danger that handing over the keys to these platforms to censor as they see fit is going to eventually lead to censorship of anything that isn't convenient to them, preventing necessary and valuable public dialogue from taking place.

Very good points, and I admit I would need to research more to flesh out my stance on the question of public ownership.

My point still stands on the second part. While theoretically it could certainly come down to subjective arguments in some cases, which could lead to improper censorship, in this case it was used to stop speech directly leading to the promotion and organization of threatening and illegal activity.

[homersapien 11,361]

1 hour ago, caleb1633 said:

I don't think this analysis holds. Yes, they are private platforms in a sense, but they are traveling on an internet that we publically financed the construction of, and they function as kind of a public square. This is where the Constitution shows its age a bit. The founders had the foresight to provide protections against government incursion, but not against incursion from the private sector and entities that have the potential to hold more power than the government itself does in certain respects. In this case, it's our right to freedom of speech. While much of what is being censored right now is information that we'd all rather not see, there becomes a danger that handing over the keys to these platforms to censor as they see fit is going to eventually lead to censorship of anything that isn't convenient to them, preventing necessary and valuable public dialogue from taking place.

I understand your logic and it's an interesting position. But I don't think that commerce that depends on an government-funded infrastructure necessarily translates to private companies who depend on that infrastructure to be extensions of the government.

It's analogous to government funding of basic science, which a lot of companies have benefited from - like pharmaceuticals, for example. 

I think government's involvement should continue to exist in the form of regulations (of the industries) and ensuring all citizens have access to the products,  but I am not sure government obligations such as free speech should be literally extended to companies who enjoy the benefits of such government-funded infrastructures as if they were extensions of the government.  That starts to sound like government ownership or control (communism).

Having said that, I do think the government has the power to implement regulations, even to the extent of a "fairness" doctrine such as the FCC implemented  in 1949.  But that comes with it's own "can of worms" - such as determining who/what is entitled to fair time.

It's an interesting debate. 

[homersapien 11,361]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

With regard to social media platforms I have to disagree here.  The social media platforms have no consistent standards at all.  It is all one sided and not fair and balanced.  It’s a private company so they get to do what they want, right?  Amazon shut down Parler over the weekend for some reason and they are suing.

This is not censorship, it is de-platforming who disagrees with you.  When it is completely done we all will be happy as there will not be any discontent.  What a wonderful world.  Then it will be state run propaganda.  Yes, freedom of the press is a 1st Amendment right too.

What??? 

Try Fox.  I hear it's "fair an balanced"

[caleb1633 1,418]

12 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

If the dialogue is necessary and valuable, then it should be able to find purchase elsewhere. 

Perfect example, as others have said, of a situation where the free market should be the answer. 

In a perfect world, I agree (and I'm generally speaking a big proponent of free markets). But right now there are only about four large platforms and they're all deciding what is necessary and valuable dialogue. People can retreat to other spaces, but their exposure will be limited, meaning a few platforms get to have mostly a monopoly on widespread discourse. Personally, I think social media is a horrible way to discuss issues related to politics, but it's what we have right now. Also consider that if they retreat to other platforms, it's an even more isolated echo chamber. How many of Trump’s supporters became more inflamed on Parler, where they had no conflicting opinions available to talk them off the ledge?

While there are concerns to be had with what is being shared on social media, I think there are benefits to leaving information up. 1) It allows Law Enforcement the ability to track potential criminal activity (we do this with external terror networks all the time). 2) It allows the court of public opinion to convict someone. E.g., How many dangerous people that are candidates for employment are ousted by their own doing because of what they post? No employers are going to check out Parler to see what their prospective employee is like—they're going to look at Facebook. If said Klansman with a Swastika Cover Photo (as an example) has been booted from FB, then the employer has no means of seeing that.

I personally think social media should function more similarly to the phone networks. No one censors what is being said on phone calls. I see where you're coming from. I just think this is a double-edged sword and could have some really negative ramifications down the road.

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What??? 

Try Fox.  I hear it's "fair an balanced"

You obviously missed the part I were I was referring to social media.  

[caleb1633 1,418]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I understand your logic and it's an interesting position. But I don't think that commerce that depends on an government-funded infrastructure necessarily translates to private companies who depend on that infrastructure to be extensions of the government.

It's analogous to government funding of basic science, which a lot of companies have benefited from - like pharmaceuticals, for example. 

I think government's involvement should continue to exist in the form of regulations (of the industries) and ensuring all citizens have access to the products,  but I am not sure government obligations such as free speech should be literally extended to companies who enjoy the benefits of such government-funded infrastructures as if they were extensions of the government.  That starts to sound like government ownership or control (communism).

Having said that, I do think the government has the power to implement regulate, even to the extent of a "fairness" doctrine such as the FCC implemented  in 1949.  But that comes with it's own "can of worms" - such as determining who/what is entitled to fair time.

It's an interesting debate. 

It's definitely an interesting debate and you bring up some great points! Because it's such a nuanced topic, I think careful thought should be given on how to handle it. Knee-jerk reactions should definitely be avoided, but I feel like that's how people are coming up with policies nowadays.

[homersapien 11,361]

25 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You obviously missed the part I were I was referring to social media.  

OK, is Twitter all one-sided?  How about Facebook?

(I don't do either, but this would come as a surprise to me.)

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

OK, is Twitter all one-sided?  How about Facebook?

(I don't do either, but this would come as a surprise to me.)

The way they dole out their bans and restrictions is one sided.  It’s not fair and balance, but they are a private company, soooo

[homersapien 11,361]

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The way they dole out their bans and restrictions is one sided.  It’s not fair and balance, but they are a private company, soooo

How is it unfair?

Should they be allowing ISIS a platform?

Who are they allowing that's doing equivalent damage to the security of the country? 

Or to put it another way, who should they ban in order to demonstrate they are balanced?

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, caleb1633 said:

1) It allows Law Enforcement the ability to track potential criminal activity (we do this with external terror networks all the time). 2) It allows the court of public opinion to convict someone. E.g., How many dangerous people that are candidates for employment are ousted by their own doing because of what they post? No employers are going to check out Parler to see what their prospective employee is like—they're going to look at Facebook. If said Klansman with a Swastika Cover Photo (as an example) has been booted from FB, then the employer has no means of seeing that.

These are really interesting points I hadn't considered. Give them enough rope, you say? I have no immediate counter argument to that.

[McLoofus 35,182]

I mean, maybe... just maybe... it's time to consider that the actual threats to national security- vs the threats to store front windows- are one-sided?

(Side rant: Which city got burned down? I keep hearing that cities are being burned down. Which ones? I'm pretty sure even Portland is still there?)

[caleb1633 1,418]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

These are really interesting points I hadn't considered. Give them enough rope, you say? I have no immediate counter argument to that.

Thanks, and yes, exactly. While there's something particularly repulsive about Q'Anon/white supremacist weirdos on social media, letting the world know who they are is better than driving them underground. No amount of evidence will convince a conspiracy theorist that ANY election isn't rigged, and I fear that censoring them only fuels their insanity.

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

How is it unfair?

Should they be allowing ISIS a platform?

Who are they allowing that's doing equivalent damage to the security of the country? 

Or to put it another way, who should they ban in order to demonstrate they are balanced?

A couple of examples;

 

and from Iran, I wonder if they have an agenda?

 

Where are the fact checkers on this?

[CoffeeTiger 5,098]

I follow a big conservative group on Facebook, PragerU, who is big time into the 'We're being censored!' angle. 

I think they've had 2 or 3 posts removed/flagged as false info out of several hundred on FB that they posts, and they use that as a fundraiser headline on, ironically,  Facebook. They'll start a fundraiser against censorship for $30,000-50,000 every couple of months and seem to usually get close to their target. Being 'censored' seems to be fairly profitable for them