Censorship is inherently bad

[Shodburrito]

I just read through the recent post about Meta announcing they were pressured by the U.S. Government to censor information on their platform.

I see a lot of people making stupid arguments about how that's a good thing but you're so blind to what you are advocating for it's hilarious.

No one gets to decide what should and should not be allowed to be spoken about on the internet. Just because you think others should be censored like extreme right wingers does not make it ethical in anyway. See, because you're so biased for the left, you think censoring alt right accounts is good even if it means reduction of free speech. But, if those same right wingers got into power and tried to censor you, you would cry about how oppresive they are. The hypocrisy is glaring.

Y'all are so arrogant to think you can be ther arbiter of defining what is "safe" and "acceptable" free speech. But what you don't realize, is that acting like anyone or any organization can properly decide what speech should be censored is ludicrous. You're completely forgetting that how corrupt and morally bankrupt the average person is. 99% of left wingers in America are only sightly more evolved than right wingers. Y'all act like they are so much better, and therefore, should be able to regulate free speech. 
You don't get it do you? Those same people are just going to end up using regulations on free speech for their own egotistical agenda. Nearly 0% of the population is evolved and selfless enough to wield that kind of power. It's insane that you think giving comapnies and the government the power to regulate internet speech is a good thing, when 99% of the politicians in government don't give a shit about you.

For a bunch of people who constantly claim they are so evolved (I'm looking at you Leo) you seem to get completely trapped in this idea that the left is so much more ethically better and evolved than the right. We need to be moving beyond right and left because both sides are rediculously corrupt. No one at these corrupt levels of development should be able to regulate speech. At a minimum a stage yellow person or above, but even then, it's not worth it.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Shodburrito said:

You're completely forgetting that how corrupt and morally bankrupt the average person is

That is the argument in favor of censorship.

If people were not corrupt and morally bankrupt, we could have more free speech.

Edited September 2 by aurum

[Recursoinominado]

If Meta decides to boost posts that encourage suicide and spread them long and frequently enough, we will see suicide rates skyrocket.

These mega corporations possess a power never seen before in humanity's history, would you prefer a handful of stage-orange greedy billionaires like Zuckerberg and Elon Musk with this kind of power deciding freely how to use it or the Government?  

[Shodburrito]

@Recursoinominado I don’t want anyone to decide how to use it? Do you not read posts? It’s so clear that I am advocating for NO censorship. Social media companies or the government cannot decide what should be censored. End of story. What do you not get about my post that I made so hard to understand? 

[Shodburrito]

@Recursoinominado That is the dumbest example I have ever heard. I don’t give a f what they promote. It is individual people’s responsibility to choose what content they consume. Anyone can go on YouTube right now and consume harmful content for any topic regardless if YouTube promotes it. Stop acting like it’s the social media’s job to choose what kind of content you should consume. You’re offloading personal choice in this matter and it’s ridiculous. You act like the people consuming suicidal content are victims. They’re not. They choose to open the app everyday. Just because some dumbasses choose to watch brain rot does not mean that we should limit the spread of ideas. 

Edited September 2 by Shodburrito

[Leo Gura]

How do you know it's not good?

[mmKay]

Would you be okay to wake up every single day, to one of your neighbours walking around your neighborhood with a loudspeaker convincing everyone that @Shodburrito is a child molester ( even though you're not ) , his wife is a witch and that his kids are satanic? And in a matter of days and weeks people throw rocks at your car, kidnap your children and put fire to your house?

Would you value freedom of speech over your own life and the life of your kids? That's what absolute free speech would allow for.

That's a more extreme example of  what spreading racist, sexist and homophobic ideas is doing to some people. It's putting other's actual life in danger 

The stakes are too high for allowing ignorant , selfish or ideological people the freedom to speak and spread their thoughts.

Society is responsible of making their best efforts of avoiding individuals to be radicalized and become threats of the larger community. If people can't be trusted to behave themselves , the collective will make sure they behave, for the well-being of the collective.

Modern society has made survival too easy. Survival is brutal. People band together in groups to make survival easier. If you were to threaten the stability and safety of the group by spreading ideas dangerous to the group, you would be fed to the livestock in no time for the sake of survival of the group.

Free speech is a luxury of democracy. Under authoritarianism or dictatorship or monarchy, there is no free speech.

Free speech can threaten the survival of society by allowing dangerous and extremist ideas to grow and proliferate like a disease. Whatever peace and stability we have right now is not a given and should not be taken for granted. Free speech regulation is for the sake of the well-being and stability of society.

Even democracy is a luxury. It has been paid for with millions of lives , blood , sweat and tears to get to this point, and yet its far from perfect.

Consider this: What if you, or your loved ones, were part of a minority group? Would you be okay with people spreading ideas that could literally lead to violence or even death against you or others like you?

Would you feel safe sending your children to school knowing that unchecked speech could inspire a school shooter?

If you had a daughter, would you be okay with her boyfriend abusing her physically and mentally, exploiting her sexually be because the boyfriend had easy direct access to someone's like Tate's or even more radical blueprint of how to make it happen?

Survival ( in the broad definition of the word) is the top priority of society at large, not free speech.  The more radical, extreme or dangerous relative to the current status quo, the more censored you will get.

 

Edited September 2 by mmKay

[Alex4]

7 hours ago, Shodburrito said:

@Recursoinominado. Stop acting like it’s the social media’s job to choose what kind of content you should consume. 

They already do it.

 

[Recursoinominado]

7 hours ago, Shodburrito said:

I don’t want anyone to decide how to use it?

That doesn't exist, they (corporations like Meta) decide what they will show you and what they won't.

They limit the reach of posts containing certain words or from some people and boost others.

It is a known fact that social media corporations profit from conflict and hate, they know that people will spend more time on their platform if they are arguing about politics than when they are seeing cat videos. 

[Shodburrito]

The replies on here are hilarious. Y’all act like civilization is going to collapse because a few extremists online say some mean stuff. Like get over yourself. America has had racism and Jim crow laws up until the 60s and we did just fine. Now you act like a much smaller number of people saying the same shit online is going to collapse democracy. Get off CNN for the love of God. 

[Shodburrito]

@mmKay again. You are completely removing personal responsibility from this matter. You act like people have no choice in the matter.  No one is forcing them to open the app and consume harmful content. Just because books like Mein Kampf exist doesn’t mean people have to go out and read it. You’re completely offloading the obvious fact that there’s so much personal responsibility in what kind of content people consume. Sorry I think that we shouldn’t give any group including the government the power to limit free speech simply because some idiots online watch harmful content. I know I’m such a radical suggesting no one should have that power. 

[Shodburrito]

@Leo Gura Did you even read the post? I mean seriously if you actually did there were several points I made. Gee, I don’t know, maybe because the most successful countries in the  world have some form of free speech as and inherent part of there social structure? And when you start to censor free speech like England has been doing the country starts to fall apart and crime rate skyrockets? See even if I gave you a 500 page dissertation on it that still wouldn’t be enough for you because you’ve already decided your opinion on the topic and think you’re right because you think you are “the most evolved” person. The funny thing is, no one cares and you just end up sounding like a pretentious asshole. See, if you actually were, you wouldn’t have to say it, your greatness would be eminently present. But it’s not, and that’s why you constantly need to project that identity out to the world to seek validation for it. Or is that too mean and too far in terms of free speech? 😢

Edited September 2 by Shodburrito

[What Am I]

Destiny made a good point in one of his recent streams. He said that whenever he considers the benefits of an additional power being added to a government, he reflects on the way in which this power can then be used by the alternate side. The obvious example here being Trump.

If the US government, and the executive in particular, was granted expanded authority in controlling public discourse, is anyone able to play out the thought experiment to see how that could become disadvantageous?

[Raze]

11 hours ago, Recursoinominado said:

If Meta decides to boost posts that encourage suicide and spread them long and frequently enough, we will see suicide rates skyrocket.

These mega corporations possess a power never seen before in humanity's history, would you prefer a handful of stage-orange greedy billionaires like Zuckerberg and Elon Musk with this kind of power deciding freely how to use it or the Government?  

Who said anything about boosting posts or allowing advocation of violence?

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

How do you know it's not good?

Even if their initial act of censorship has benefits, that power can be used to later cause immense damage.

Also, people act in their own interest. So what the government or social media corporations decide to censor may be good for them, but not necessarily for everyone else.

Edited September 2 by Raze

[mmKay]

1 hour ago, Shodburrito said:

@mmKay again. You are completely removing personal responsibility from this matter. You act like people have no choice in the matter. You’re completely offloading the obvious fact that there’s so much personal responsibility in what kind of content people consume. Sorry I think that we shouldn’t give any group including the government the power to limit free speech simply because some idiots online watch harmful content. I know I’m such a radical suggesting no one should have that power. 

@Shodburrito Ignorant, undeveloped, and ideological people can’t be trusted with “personal responsibility” and that’s why society has the collective responsibility to account for these risks. If there’s even a chance something could get seriously out of hand and be dangerous for society, it should be stopped before it starts.

MAGA extremism, neo-Nazis, and terrorist fundamentalists are dangerous precisely because they were allowed to spread unchecked. We’ve seen the devastating results: Charlottesville, the Capitol riot, and terrorist attacks.

Saying society “did just fine” during Jim Crow is insane. Black people faced horrific lynchings. They were tortured and hung in public with crowds of white people cheering and taking photographs.  

Free speech is a luxury. The stakes are too high to let dangerous ideas spread like a virus. Society must protect itself, especially when individuals can’t be trusted with collective responsability.

Regulating harmful speech is about ensuring that freedom doesn’t come at the cost of others’ lives. Dangerous ideas will spread anyways, but giving them easy mediums to spread is irresponsible and reckless.

If you say there should be no censorship at all, you’re actually pushing for a kind of censorship that prevents society from protecting itself. By rejecting all forms of censorship, you're denying the collective's right to limit harmful speech and keep everyone safe.

Edited September 2 by mmKay

[aurum]

53 minutes ago, mmKay said:

@Shodburrito Ignorant, undeveloped, and ideological people can’t be trusted with “personal responsibility” and that’s why society has the collective responsibility to account for these risks. If there’s even a chance something could get seriously out of hand and be dangerous for society, it should be stopped before it starts.

MAGA extremism, neo-Nazis, and terrorist fundamentalists are dangerous precisely because they were allowed to spread unchecked. We’ve seen the devastating results: Charlottesville, the Capitol riot, and terrorist attacks.

Saying society “did just fine” during Jim Crow is insane. Black people faced horrific lynchings. They were tortured and hung in public with crowds of white people cheering and taking photographs.  

Free speech is a luxury. The stakes are too high to let dangerous ideas spread like a virus. Society must protect itself, especially when individuals can’t be trusted with collective responsability.

Regulating harmful speech is about ensuring that freedom doesn’t come at the cost of others’ lives. Dangerous ideas will spread anyways, but giving them easy mediums to spread is irresponsible and reckless.

If you say there should be no censorship at all, you’re actually pushing for a kind of censorship that prevents society from protecting itself. By rejecting all forms of censorship, you're denying the collective's right to limit harmful speech and keep everyone safe.

Nice explanation.

[Shodburrito]

@mmKay My point is who is to decide what is "dangerous"? If the right is in power they say it is trans people, if the left is in power they will say it is ultra-maga people. Who is to decide who is right? You can't just give and justify that kind of power to anyone, you don't know know who will end up having it. Sure, it may be irresponsible to let extremists have a voice on platforms, but it's more irresponsible to justify a small group of people having absolute authority on who gets to say what.

[Shodburrito]

@mmKay also lynchings did not end because free speech was censored. So, I don’t know get what you’re saying there, it’s kind of a dumb point. 

[Raze]

1 hour ago, mmKay said:

Saying society “did just fine” during Jim Crow is insane. Black people faced horrific lynchings. They were tortured and hung in public with crowds of white people cheering and taking photographs.  

Free speech is a luxury. The stakes are too high to let dangerous ideas spread like a virus. Society must protect itself, especially when individuals can’t be trusted with collective responsability.

Regulating harmful speech is about ensuring that freedom doesn’t come at the cost of others’ lives. Dangerous ideas will spread anyways, but giving them easy mediums to spread is irresponsible and reckless.
 

By your logic, you would have been giving the white supremacist society the power to regulate speech, which would have given them an even stronger hand to oppress blacks. One reason why lynching ended was because journalists covered it and authors criticized it exposing the practice. 

Edited September 2 by Raze

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Shodburrito said:

Y’all act like civilization is going to collapse because a few extremists online say some mean stuff.

And ya'll act like civilization is gonna collapse because Zuckerberg down-ranked some unhinged racist conspiracy theories and censored some child porn.

What social media companies censor is the worst forms of trash-intelligence content. The most worthless and toxic information.

Anything intelligent that is actually said is not censored.

Edited September 2 by Leo Gura