Elon Musk has NO IDEA what he is up against

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Rokazulu said:

I would be highly aware of this assumption.

It has recently happened to journalists Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald and (I believe) a few others on Youtube. Rest assured, they are not idiots, nor did they break any terms of service.

There is also this study that can show how censorship only further radicalizes people.
https://cdn-assets.minds.com/The_Censorship_Effect.pdf

Hedges wasn't silenced by YT for his views. Hedges was part of the Russian funded RT propaganda channel which got rightly banned.

No one gives a fuck about silencing Hedges on YT. You can find tons of his interviews on YT.

What your study fails to show is how unmoderated platforms are overrun by neo-Nazis, racists, conspiracy theorists, and toxic trolls -- creating a far-right indoctrination pipeline.

Moderation is not censorship. A public square has rules. You can't just throw shit at people willy-nilly.

[vladorion]

Neo-nazis are doing fine on YT, as long as they're of the right nationality.

https://www.youtube.com/c/AZOVmedia/

[Bobby_2021]

5 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Free speech won't affect power structures. 

Jan 6, 2021 the biggest power structure came close to collapsing due to free speech by Trump.

[Bobby_2021]

Also Bill Gates buying up farmland in the US and black rock buying up all the homes.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[SeaMonster]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Jan 6, 2021 the biggest power structure came close to collapsing due to free speech by Trump.

Seriously? It came nowhere close to collapsing, get serious.  That's hyperbole of the highest order, and the reason why I can't take complaints about toxicity of Twitter seriously.  At some point you can't keep going to the "everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi" playbook.  A large majority of the country has opinions that, if freely expressed on Twitter, would get them banned (such as regarding transgender issues.)  That's unsustainable for a "public square."

[Bobby_2021]

Senators got very close to being killed. We can't say, if that would lead to an outright collapse, but that could have been severe damage. Imagine if Trump gets wounded, how would the right wing react?

 

Also I don't like calling people a Nazi for having disagreements with me because I am not woke. But the seriousness of Jan 6 is under estimated by RW folks.

1 hour ago, SeaMonster said:

It came nowhere close to collapsing, get serious. 

[SeaMonster]

14 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Senators got very close to being killed. We can't say, if that would lead to an outright collapse, but that could have been severe damage.

Congressmen got very close to being killed (Scalise was wounded) at that baseball game by a Bernie nut, and the media pretty much yawned and moved on.  That was actually a much more direct example of what you're talking about, there is no need to speculate about it.  Presidents have been assassinated several times (and others wounded) in our nation's history and there hasn't been an outright collapse.  So with all due respect, get some perspective.

Edited April 18, 2022 by SeaMonster

[Girzo]

@A_v_E what you are proposing is freedom to hurt yourself and others.

There are responsible adult people who don't like seeing needless suffering and stop ideas that they deem going in that direction.

You can make sophisticated conservative arguments that are conscious. Although people with capabilities to make such arguments are rare all over the spectrum and on the right-wing they are super-rare and probably not the people you would think about.

Be aware that your whole post is you screaming that you don't understand the term "low consciousness" and not a serious critique of that idea.

Yes there is a game being played. Saying someone is a troll or a low consciousness person is not denying the game, it's assesing their progress in the game relative to you.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Girzo

[A_v_E]

@Girzo your claim that progress exist is in itself an epistemological claim based on a "left wing" assumption.

[zurew]

The only problem is, when the rules are blurry, so you don't know where you cross them and when.

Topics where there is a lot of disagreement will always trigger some people lets be it progressive or conservative. We can't totally avoid trigerring people, because anyone can get offended by anything.

The question is, do we care more about discussing hard, heavy topics or do we care about people's feelings so much so, that we are afraid to talk about some stuff, because we are afraid that it will trigger some people.

We can always get behind the 'i got offended curtain' and use it as a weapon to deal with ideologies and ideas that we don't agree with, so we don't need to argue against them. People can get offended if we are talking about ideas that they don't agree with.

Why not use arguments to deal with people we don't agree with? Labeling everyone as low conscious  is a lazy way to deal with ideas. Tear down their ideas with your arguments, so everyone can see that you have a more nuanced view on that particular problem compared to the other person.

Of course there are some lines that have practical and moral usage, but those lines should be very precise and tangible. If the lines are not exact , the lines can be weaponised.

 Do we want to ban based on intention? Who decides how can we evaluate who had what intention. There are some very clear cases, where we can see the bad intention and ad hominem but there are some  other cases, where you can evaluate sentences in 10 different ways.

[A_v_E]

@zurew that's a good post

[Rokazulu]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Hedges wasn't silenced by YT for his views. Hedges was part of the Russian funded RT propaganda channel which got rightly banned.

No one gives a fuck about silencing Hedges on YT. You can find tons of his interviews on YT.

What your study fails to show is how unmoderated platforms are overrun by neo-Nazis, racists, conspiracy theorists, and toxic trolls -- creating a far-right indoctrination pipeline.

Moderation is not censorship. A public square has rules. You can't just throw shit at people willy-nilly.

Hedges had his entire archive banned from Youtube.  Being a reporter who said that the Russian invasion is "criminal". Don't you think this was a bit careless of a ban?

Why did we not ban CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News for leading us into the Iraq war through misinformation of "weapons of mass destruction"?

 

As @vladorion shows, apparently Neo-Nazis are still an acceptable point of view for some of these tech companies:
https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-battalion-russia/
Why haven't we banned neo-nazis from these platforms?
Why haven't we banned Chinese funded media on Youtube?
https://www.youtube.com/c/cctv

Why do we allow (and often still allow) conspiracy theories such as "Russia-gate" to spread?
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/04/russiagate-surveillance-politics-russian-trolls-greenwald

Why has Facebook banned left-wing groups?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/01/23/pers-j23.html
 

The study is not against moderation. It actually shows that it is necessary when it becomes hate speech and in many other instances.

 

But, it is clear that the public square only have these moderation rules in place when they are convenient to utilize as censorship, by way of interpreting speech that goes against the corporate narrative as "hate speech" or "misinformation" . Censorship is what we are looking at here, and not moderation of a few outliers. This creating a greater divide, and not a greater harmony.


 

Edited April 18, 2022 by Rokazulu

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Rokazulu said:

Don't you think this was a bit careless of a ban?

That will happen. That's how policing works. It's never perfect.

You guys are living in fantasy land. You have no comprehension of how difficult it is to moderate a platform like YT, Facebook, or Twitter.

[OBEler]

Wehrmacht Videos with heroic music - - All banned from yt

Hitler speeches - - all banned from yt

drug documentarys which give positive perspective on drugs (dmt) - - All banned from yt

Back in 2000 it was all available

Solid snake knew which way it goes

Edited April 18, 2022 by OBEler

[Epikur]

 

[BuddhistLover]

I feel like you're right on the censorship. It takes a level of maturity to see it, but sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good of the whole world. Then moderation comes in, and it is important to not let any bullshit slide. Doing the right thing is very important. And the only reason why someone would be against sacrificing for the greater good is because their values feel left out. So, if all people's total values are accounted for, then there will be peace. Letting everyone have their personal slice of the pie so to speak, but they have to work for it. That's the idea. If you think about, the only reason why sites are so hard to moderate, is because of "SELFISHNESS" and "IMMATURITY". 

"IMMATURITY"+"SELFISHNESS" = DIFFICULT MODERATION

That's the idea. Don't feel afraid to tell me if I'm wrong.

[hoodrow trillson]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No serious person in America is like, "My ideas are too smart so I am being suppressed."

It's the biggest assholes and idiots who whine about their speech being supressed. Nothing valuable is lost there.

If you express good ideas respectfully no platform is gonna supress you. But people want the freedom to express bad ideas in obnoxious ways. Eventually they get banned and of course they blame everyone but themselves.

What serious intellectual has been banned from Twitter for their ideas?

Yeah, Twitter bans assholes like Trump, as they should.

That Musk doesn't understand this speaks poorly of his understanding of how to build and sustain healthy communities. His Mars colony will be a libertarian shitshow a la Bioshock.

Leo, I'm not sure if you're aware but this very forum is slowly becoming a safe haven for right wing garbage, especially in this Society section of the forum.  Less and less people are engaging against it, since it's exhausting to argue with what is seemingly a brick wall.  

[Leo Gura]

18 minutes ago, hoodrow trillson said:

Leo, I'm not sure if you're aware but this very forum is slowly becoming a safe haven for right wing garbage, especially in this Society section of the forum.  Less and less people are engaging against it, since it's exhausting to argue with what is seemingly a brick wall.  

I am aware of that and I hand out warnings and will be banning right-wing ideologues and trolls. Point them out to me if I am missing them.

[Leo Gura]

Reddit's former CEO understands what I am talking about with moderation:

https://www.businessinsider.com/former-reddit-ceo-elon-musk-twitter-free-speech-viral-thread-2022-4

[JTL]

@Leo Gura can you elaborate why it was right to ban RT?