Censorship is inherently bad

[Shodburrito]

@Leo Gura What? The hunter Biden story that turned out to be true?

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Shodburrito said:

@Leo Gura What? The hunter Biden story that turned out to be true?

That's the perfect example of trash content. Literally Hunter's dick pics.

[Shodburrito]

@Leo Gura If the government did this but it was instead censoring left wing ideas you’d lose your mind. So hypocritical 

[Yimpa]

@Shodburrito Random observation, but is the YouTube channel in your signature your YouTube channel? The Project Ascendancy's logo is very similar to Actualized's logo. Very fascinating. 

[What Am I]

5 minutes ago, Shodburrito said:

@Leo Gura If the government did this but it was instead censoring left wing ideas you’d lose your mind. So hypocritical 

I'd have to agree. Perhaps the left will be lucky enough to experience it for themselves, with all the precedent and fancy new apparatuses being put in place.

Anybody remember the Disinformation Governance Board that the US attempted to stand up in 2022? Thankfully, public outcry pushed it back into the shadows. But if anyone pays attention to the way bills are publicly rejected for a time and then reemerge in a new form, it's not impossible to conceive of a centralized and enforced source of truth being implemented.

[Leo Gura]

The left has been targetted by the CIA and FBI for 80 years. This is nothing new for the left. Facebook is the least of the left's problems.

Edited September 2 by Leo Gura

[Shodburrito]

@Leo Gura okay so can we agree that censorship is usually not a good idea and 99% of people are not responsible enough or wise enough to wield that kind of power? 

Edited September 2 by Shodburrito

[What Am I]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The left has been targetted by the CIA and FBI for 80 years. This is nothing new for the left. Facebook is the least of the left's problems.

Interesting point. With the left's current control at the management level of those agencies, perhaps what we're currently seeing is actually the right's comeuppance for past injustices. Maybe it's them who should have been careful what structures they put in place.

Edited September 2 by What Am I

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Shodburrito said:

@Leo Gura okay so can we agree that censorship is usually not a good idea? 

I will only agree to that if I see cases of healthy, intelligent, honest discourse being censored in meaninful quantity.

I am not going to be tricked into opening the floodgates for right-wing racism, intellectual dishonesty, conspiracy nonsense, and propaganda.

What the right-wing is really complaining about is being blocked from polluting the epistemic ecosystem. That's what all this whining about "censorship" is really about. Which is why I do not take it seriously. It's bad faith. A bully crying that he's not allowed to bully.

Edited September 2 by Leo Gura

[Shodburrito]

@Leo Gura What about the same for the left? And who is to decide that those with that power are responsible enough to not use it for their egotistical advantage?

[What Am I]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What the right-wing is really complaining about is being blocked from polluting the epistemic ecosystem. That's what all this whining about "censorship" is really about. Which is why I do not take it seriously. It's bad faith. A bully crying that he's not allowed to bully.

No doubt there's some legit truth here, but I think we're seeing all around the world how a person reacts when you try to tape their mouth shut, regardless of how nonsensical their utterances are. The push-back and uprisings are certainly not limited to the US. Not saying I know of a better way to deal with it, just making an observation about our rapidly decaying situation.

In a world where the epistemic deviance becomes too severe, I wonder just how far things would go to maintain order. Would exterminations really be off the table? It may seem so silly to us right now, but appropriate solutions are always relative to the current situation.

[Leo Gura]

49 minutes ago, Shodburrito said:

And who is to decide that those with that power are responsible enough to not use it for their egotistical advantage?

Brother, that's how society has always been for 10,000 years. People in power get to make those calls. And they can lose their jobs and lives for it. That's the tacit bargain.

There cannot be some magic perfect system. And corruption, error, and bias will always be at play.

That's why we have elections.

Edited September 2 by Leo Gura

[Shodburrito]

@Yimpa No, I don’t run it. I am a part of the group and one of the mods. I don’t know if the guy who runs it knows about Actualized.

[martins name]

The nightmare scenarios of societies where censorship becomes draconian are all lowly developed. I think we can trust highly developed countries to strike a balance. Censorship is not inherently bad, it can lead to extremes which is bad. But not striking a balance can also lead to the opposite extreme by creating a powerful pendulum swing.

[yetineti]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I will only agree to that if I see cases of healthy, intelligent, honest discourse being censored in meaningful quantity.

And by that time we wouldn’t be able to have this conversation

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, yetineti said:

And by that time we wouldn’t be able to have this conversation

It's just not a serious danger in a developed nation.

The real serious danger is our epistemic ecosystem getting so flooded with shit that people think a perfecty legit election was stolen or that a serious pandemic is a government plot to control you.

Half of Americans are drowning in so much toxic bullshit that they are eager to reelect a narccistic lecherous glutonus neo-fascist rapist criminal conartist traiter -- thinking this will magically improve our situation.

Edited September 2 by Leo Gura

[mmKay]

2 hours ago, Shodburrito said:

@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?

Different groups may define danger in various ways, but that doesn’t mean that "danger" is all relative . Saying that is just weaponizing relativism and is one of the limits of post-modernism. It's not an excuse for us to avoid regulating whatever we consider to be harmful speech.

We have clear criteria, like incitement to violence or hate speech, that can guide regulation.

History has proven the catastrophic results of leaving extremist ideologies unchecked. Ironically, allowing extremist speech to go unchecked often leads to authoritarianism, which ultimately undermines free speech itself.

Both right and left have valid concerns, but this doesn’t mean we should avoid regulation altogether. The indoctrination of youth with extreme ideologies, whether from radical gender theories or far-right extremism, calls for more regulation, not less

2 hours ago, Shodburrito said:

@mmKay 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.

You know what’s worse than a government regulating free speech? No regulation at all, or letting it be controlled by a single person or a tiny group of radicals. That’s a guarantee for corruption and catastrophe. Modern democracies have developed rules over centuries of trial and error to balance free speech and safety. It’s not perfect, but it’s far better than having no rules at all against hate speech, which history has proven to be a recipe for disaster. It would be a regression in evolution and a failure to learn from history

2 hours ago, Shodburrito said:

@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. 

Yeah, lynching wasn’t stopped thanks to free speech being censored, butt it was started by unchecked hate " free speech".
 

2 hours ago, Raze said:

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. 

White supremacists did have the power to regulate free speech during that time, but they were openly proud of their actions and didn’t even recognize them as atrocities. They lacked the self-awareness to hide or moderate their speech or actions because their ideology blinded them, so journalists didn’t even uncover or expose hidden lynchings. They documented and published what was already being done openly and unashamedly by these people. Increased public awareness and eventual activism helped to end it.

Edited September 2 by mmKay

[Buck Edwards]

You cannot have free speech if you do not have high consciousness. In a low conscious society, that free speech would be terribly weaponized and misused to suit populist vote. 

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, Buck Edwards said:

In a low conscious society, that free speech would be terribly weaponized and misused to suit populist vote. 

Trump:

[Buck Edwards]

24 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

Trump:

It's along the lines of Familiarity breeds contempt. Too much free speech will breed contempt between different classes of society.