Social media censorship roundup

[BigV]

I don't think it's censorship if I can still say it, just not here.

Those people whose groups were deleted, what's to keep them from repeating their message on a different platform?

I have been exercising my imagination to encompass your premise

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Then imagine the government and private industry colluded to make sure your social media group was deleted

(emphasis mine)

and I was overtaxed. I can't do it. What government is colluding with Facebook to delete these groups? Probably not the ice cream lady, and all the other hands on levers of power are hauling in the other direction.

[Undertoad]

Those people whose groups were deleted, what's to keep them from repeating their message on a different platform?

That is not the definition of censorship

When television networks prohibited the display of homosexuality as part of their standards and practices, that was censorship even though one could show it elsewhere

What government is colluding with Facebook to delete these groups?

The groups are removed from Facebook on the instruction of state governments in, so far, three states

[BigV]

If I can still say it, I'm not censored. That's just my opinion man.

When does the absence of something become censorship? When I bite my tongue and refrain from saying "Jane, you ignorant slut."? Or when I post something and it's deleted?

What's the difference between abiding by community standards and self censorship? Editing and censorship? Is the enforcement of a site's terms and conditions censorship? What if I want to target a particular group with my ads and that group's not selectable? Have I been censored?

When I don't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, am I being censored?

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's censorship if the rule your breaking is not in place beforehand.

[Undertoad]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

snip--
The groups are removed from Facebook on the instruction of state governments in, so far, three states

bold claim. Ben Shapiro and Oliver Darcy and Mike Davis think so, and lots of people who flock in the same twitter murmurations. I haven't seen any messages from any state governments saying this is what they did. Have you? Or from Facebook? That Facebook says they've followed instructions from the state government to censor their users?


Just thinkin out loud here for a minute, skip it if you want.

I'll focus on the social media aspect in a minute, but the whole social distancing behavior, stay apart to help reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus, this practice is on I have adopted, as have many many other people. The promotion of this practice has been... what's the word... formalized into a guideline, not a law. But the force of laws has been discussed and applied, (I don't know the names of the laws...:/) like being in a place during an emergency where I don't belong. It's ..."like" trespassing, but that's definitely not the right word. Improperly being in a controlled area during an exceptional time, an accident scene, a crime scene, the beach during a hurricane, you get the idea.

The enforcement of these guidelines is widely accepted in many other situations but this situation is exceptional for a number of reasons, reasons that make it harder to do and harder to see and harder to understand. The risk is diffuse and invisible and delayed. That kind of threat is hard for us humans to perceive. And I have a hard time keeping my vigilance at a high level without the kinds of inputs that normally keep me on my toes. This coronavirus pandemic is not scary when I look out my window and see the sun shining on the trees and grass and birdies and flowers. Why not go out, why not enjoy this pretty spring day? Why not share that enjoyment with others? BZZZZZZZT!

Ah, that's when my intellectual brain remembers what I've been told is the best practice--not gather together out with a bunch of my fellow two legged virus targets.

Promoting this idea, the social distancing requires effort, it's an effort to accomplish, the promotion is a necessary part of the success of the effort.

Governments, *at all levels*, are promoting it. Social media platforms are promoting it.

I think the quality and value of this idea of social distancing, and crucially, the motivation for the guidelines, is what is in dispute between, say, me, and the people saying their right to freely assemble is being abridged. Both sides are looking at the same thing, and seeing different things. I challenge the other side by saying my reasoning, increased chance of not transmitting the virus is more important, they say differently. I would also challenge them by reminding them that there are no rights without responsibilities. All our rights are exercised in a framework, all of them have limits of some kind. We have rules, right?

The value of breaking the rules is kind of proportional to the proportion of those who follow the rules. If traffic is gridlocked, and one guy pulls into the breakdown lane and zooms along at 70 mph, he gets a big benefit. That benefit tapers off pretty quickly when a second guy does it, then five more, then when everybody's doing it, we just have a somewhat wider traffic jam.

I don't have a problem with a social media platform, say Facebook, removing posts that advocate activity that is counterproductive to public health. Enforcing terms and conditions / censorship; potato / tomato.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

yeah, read it already.

I concede that you're using the word properly in context.

I think you're finessing the conflation of our First amendment and the word censorship.

from your link:

Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.

So censorship is happening. Why should I care? Are you suggesting a law has been broken? I do care about laws. Is someone being harmed?

[Undertoad]

It appears Mr Darcy was inexact in his wording and we do not have evidence that the states requested takedown. Only that they "communicated"

"Communication" is vague but one state is denying they ASKED for the takedown

Thank you for the correction

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/polit...sts/index.html

Facebook has come under fire as groups organizing anti-stay-at-home protests have popped up all over the platform. Stone said Facebook would take down posts created through the Facebook Events feature that promote events in California, New Jersey and Nebraska. Other Facebook posts, including Facebook groups about the protests, might not be removed.

Alyana Alfaro Post, a spokesperson for New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, told CNN that the governor's office and Facebook had been communicating about the issue but said, "The governor's office did not ask Facebook to remove pages or posts for events promoting lifting the provisions of the governor's stay-at-home order."

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by BigV

So censorship is happening. Why should I care? Are you suggesting a law has been broken? I do care about laws. Is someone being harmed?

Why you should care: because free expression is wildly valuable to a society and defending it is a keystone principle of, at least, the USA

Am I suggesting a law has been broken: no lol

Is someone being harmed: yes; the censored people, the people who wish to read the censored information, and anyone else who may benefit from the content being available

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Why you should care: because free expression is wildly valuable to a society and defending it is a keystone principle of, at least, the USA

Am I suggesting a law has been broken: no lol

Is someone being harmed: yes; the censored people, the people who wish to read the censored information, and anyone else who may benefit from the content being available

I strongly disagree with your position.

Propagation of disinformation is harmful. Censorship of harmful information is helpful.

And now we're back to my point

I think the quality and value of this idea of social distancing, and crucially, the motivation for the guidelines, is what is in dispute between, say, me, and the people saying their right to freely assemble is being abridged. Both sides are looking at the same thing, and seeing different things. I challenge the other side by saying my reasoning, increased chance of not transmitting the virus is more important, they say differently. I would also challenge them by reminding them that there are no rights without responsibilities. All our rights are exercised in a framework, all of them have limits of some kind. We have rules, right?

removing the social media content is what happened.

why it was removed is not clear and is in dispute.

one narrative is fb is doing the bidding of the tyrannical states.

one narrative is fb is enforcing their terms and conditions.

both narratives involve censorship (I'm self censoring my urge to surround that with scare quotes)

How YOU feel about whichever narrative you think is most likely correct is 100% on you; exactly the same for ME.

But we don't agree on what's really behind the takedowns.

[Undertoad]

Propagation of disinformation is harmful. Censorship of harmful information is helpful.

Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?

But we don't agree on what's really behind the takedowns.

You're assuming all my thoughts and beliefs, and then debating with whatever you figure they must be. It's ridiculous, stop it.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?

Totally tail-posting on whatever the debate is here, but "who decides" is a good question, there's not a good answer, and that's where all our problems begin. We can't decide on what to do because we can't decide what's real or not. And there's brain-numbingly stupid examples of this. Exxon knew about global warming 40 years ago, but because they were so good at spreading misinformation, we're still (somehow) arguing about this.

I thought, briefly, that a global pandemic would be a sobering moment for us to all agree on a basic premise, but that's gone out the window. And in typical fashion-- not by direct contradiction but by the "I'm just asking questions, is that a crime?" method, aka muddying the waters. But SOMEBODY has to be a "source" of information. We literally can't survive without information to inform our decisions.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

snip--
You're assuming all my thoughts and beliefs, and then debating with whatever you figure they must be. It's ridiculous, stop it.

Oh! Come and see the censorship inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?

Evidently you did when you censored Henry.

[Undertoad]

Well if every time I talk, I'm talking on behalf of the Cellar, instead of just conversationally, I'll do my conversational talking elsewhere.

See y'all later