Censorship is inherently bad

[yetineti]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

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

The problem is, the people propagating the views that should be censored do not understand censorship is not a serious danger. 
 

How does poking and prodding them with censorship help them at all? Doesn’t it just radicalize them more?

 

[Yimpa]

How come this message was censored for far too long?

 

[Buck Edwards]

9 minutes ago, yetineti said:

The problem is, the people propagating the views that should be censored do not understand censorship is not a serious danger. 
 

How does poking and prodding them with censorship help them at all? Doesn’t it just radicalize them more?

 

There's something called positive reinforcement. It might tame people to slowly come to self reflection. 

 

[What Am I]

1 hour ago, Buck Edwards said:

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. 

Pretty good point. It's possible spiritual attainment is the lynchpin of a truly healthy human society. Considering only a minute fraction of humans on earth are even aware of its existence, maybe it's not so surprising we're in this unfortunate state. True freedom for everyone may not sound so wacky when all individuals experientially comprehend their literal unity.

[Raze]

2 hours ago, mmKay said:

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.

This isn’t remotely true and you have no idea what you are talking about. Slaves weren’t even allowed to be taught how to read at one point.

 

Edited September 2 by Raze

[yetineti]

@Buck Edwards

2 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

There's something called positive reinforcement. It might tame people to slowly come to self reflection. 

 

I get that… censoring people is not positive reinforcement, it is negative reinforcement.

[Yimpa]

15 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@Buck Edwards

I get that… censoring people is not positive reinforcement, it is negative reinforcement.

It is both - you need to strike the right balance.

 

[Jacob Morres]

I agree with your points that we need high conscious ppl in control but the solution is def not no censorship. Think about the implications of that 

Threats of violence, coercing ppl to commit suicide, organizing terrorist attacks, nazi propaganda Etc. Etc. 

Like imagine we couldn't censor ppl for giving out nuke codes lol 

[Alex4]

It's amazing how conservatives defend free speach nowadays, It goes against their nature. A true and honest conservative would be concerned about the information that is being spread in society.

 

9 hours ago, yetineti said:

The problem is, the people propagating the views that should be censored do not understand censorship is not a serious danger. 
 

How does poking and prodding them with censorship help them at all? Doesn’t it just radicalize them more?

 

Censorship is not aimed at correcting internet content creators, television hosts, or politicians who spread falsehoods and lies. The goal is to prevent teenagers, who are just beginning to form their view of the world, from falling into toxic ideologies and mental traps at such a young age. 99% of grown-ups and staunch radicalists are losts causes, even more when their survival depends on it.

[Buck Edwards]

3 hours ago, Alex4 said:

It's amazing how conservatives defend free speach nowadays, It goes against their nature. A true and honest conservative would be concerned about the information that is being spread in society.

 

Yea very right. 

[yetineti]

14 hours ago, Yimpa said:

It is both - you need to strike the right balance.

 

@Yimpa I actually had my definitions mixed up- it’s not negative reinforcement, it’s not positive reinforcement and it certainly isn’t both lol.

It is just punishment to censor.

 

Edited September 3 by yetineti

[yetineti]

7 hours ago, Alex4 said:

It's amazing how conservatives defend free speach nowadays, It goes against their nature. A true and honest conservative would be concerned about the information that is being spread in society.

It’s just as amazing in the other direction. I could just say ‘a true and honest liberal would be concerned about the inability to express information spread in society.’

[yetineti]

7 hours ago, Alex4 said:

Censorship is not aimed at correcting internet content creators, television hosts, or politicians who spread falsehoods and lies. The goal is to prevent teenagers, who are just beginning to form their view of the world, from falling into toxic ideologies and mental traps at such a young age. 99% of grown-ups and staunch radicalists are losts causes, even more when their survival depends on it.

Why are we trying to solve a problem for kids that shouldn’t be on these media platforms anyways?

Seems to me just not allowing the kids to be on there in the first place makes a lot more sense and is easier.

[Alex4]

9 minutes ago, yetineti said:

It’s just as amazing in the other direction. I could just say ‘a true and honest liberal would be concerned about the inability to express information spread in society.’

They are concerned about falsehoods that are spread freely on the internet, which is a valid concern. Conservatives should agree on this and not be stubborn as a mule.

Some of these falsehoods, even if they seem harmless, can lead to real violence. The debate should focus on how far we should go with these limits to ensure that the majority of people—who don’t engage in harmful practices or spread hate speech—don’t have their ability to share their opinions restricted. I know choosing an arbitrator for this can be very controversial because both sides will think the referee has a hidden agenda (which could be the case but that's what checks and balances are for). Still, I believe setting some limits is better than allowing harmful content to be spread freely. 

[ici]

Leo owns this site and he can censor you and ban you.

Whoever owns the platform has control over the content that’s on it. Same goes for YouTube, Reddit, X, etc.

It’s a power dynamic of life.

If a platform disallows you from saying what you wanna say, you either create your own or switch to another which does.

The government has the greatest control and can shut you down unless the platform is peer-to-peer or private with no insiders.

You can say whatever you want in real life but the outreach would be less as people primarily consume information and converse on the web.

There can be social consequences - both positive and negative depending on how people interpret what you say. People can understand you and not understand you. Intention, context, language matter.

Ultimately exercising your freedom of speech is a way and an attempt to influence people and steer the world towards your values, to enforce your beliefs, your worldview, your biases. Whatever helps your ego.

Edited September 4 by ici

[Gennadiy1981]

That’s not the point here. The problem is the government asked him to censor and it didn’t come from Facebook itself. There is some political world agenda to increase censorship, see what’s happening in UK or Ireland or even France. Did you see that they arrested the developer of Telegram for allowing free speech. It’s not about the content but the idea. The governments are really now into monitoring and controlling social media.
 

You may say but I don’t do anything illegal so nothing to worry about. But… many of us here say use 5 MEO DMT and by the way that is not legal, so what happens if they will start cracking on that. What would you do? How would you communicate with dealers. Just one example out of many. 
 

you know Leo would claim that it’s stage yellow thinking to have this global type of government, like World Economic Forum for example. But I think it’s an access of Yellow thinking because ideally let’s say we have one world government, who wants to have peace and prosperity and equality, but then say a stage Red jerk takes over power, then we all screwed up. 
 

So as much as I may disagree with Marian conservatives but they have a very valid point, live and let leave. And they seem to be so right about having individual freedoms because the more local the government is, the harder it is to control.
 

This is something what I truly fear. This can be a huge issue. 

[Buck Edwards]

Censorship my ass. 

 

[ici]

2 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

Censorship my ass. 

 

HAHAHAHAH NO WAY 💀

The UK is cooked

[Buck Edwards]

2 hours ago, ici said:

HAHAHAHAH NO WAY 💀

The UK is cooked

[ryoko]

The only people who seemed to be crying about free speech are those who damage the morale growth of society for selfish means. Nobody holistic cries about free speech.