What's actually being censored: misinformation or the truth?

[rnd]

Why would the collective West - US, EU, UK ... not sensor those who claim that the Earth is flat? But they'll gladly, whenever the stakes are high, censor certain people -- the ones  who go and speak against  the herd -- and almost any news that come certain countries that they don't like?

 

"Ohhhhh, I see. This is  propaganda from X again. Why would you even read it?"
Or "Let's finally shut it down. More over, let's counterfight it by creating "fact-checks". But those "fact check" websites are nothing but pure disinformation itself.

 

Therefore, can it be that what's censored is not a lie? But the truth? Or least, partially? And to find out what the truth is, one has to look at what's being censored as opposed to what's in the mainstream news, and what everyone says echoing everyone else.

 

There's censoredship in other countries too - I'm aware. But at least those don't claim, for the most part, that they are democratic, just and transparent. And don't stick their nose in the matters of other countries for this very issue.

Edited November 24, 2022 by rnd

[Danioover9000]

@rnd

6 hours ago, rnd said:

Why would the collective West - US, EU, UK ... not sensor those who claim that the Earth is flat? But they'll gladly, whenever the stakes are high, censor certain people -- the ones  who go and speak against  the herd -- and almost any news that come certain countries that they don't like?

 

"Ohhhhh, I see. This is  propaganda from X again. Why would you even read it?"
Or "Let's finally shut it down. More over, let's counterfight it by creating "fact-checks". But those "fact check" websites are nothing but pure disinformation itself.

 

Therefore, can it be that what's censored is not a lie? But the truth? Or least, partially? And to find out what the truth is, one has to look at what's being censored as opposed to what's in the mainstream news, and what everyone says echoing everyone else.

 

There's censoredship in other countries too - I'm aware. But at least those don't claim, for the most part, that they are democratic, just and transparent. And don't stick their nose in the matters of other countries for this very issue.

   It depends on the stage of development, cognitive and moral development, personality typing, ego development, life experiences, and other lines of development frim the individual to collective areas of development, worldviews, beliefs, indoctrination and ideological beliefs imprinted into one's mind during their upbringing in their family unit, with cultural, economic, religious/scientific, historical and other societal ideas then told mostly through mainstream media like tv programs and radio and maybe newspapers, also through one's education system and neighbourhood and community in groups. On top of that the mind also ditorts and generalizes reality to suit it's survival agenda and biases it identifies and attached strongly to to derive it's own meaningful life story whilst hallucunating otherness in it's narratives it associates deeply into.

   In regards to the west's epistemic view of censoring which form of speech and behaviours, it's mostly throughout time have been consistent with how it has controlled for which forms of expressions to show publically or what not to show for the sake of it's survival as a collective ego. In your example of how the USA, UK and EU don't censor flat earthers but cencor certain people who speak against the herd, I feel intuitively you are selectively biased and are purposely being vague with how you worded the latter comparison, but are okay with saying the first as flat earthers. Wether this is intentional or sloppy writing you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll work with what you given me. There are plenty of cases that a country is justified in cencorship, so, taking your vague comparison, I can say the choice to cencor a terrorist, rapist, images or film of cannibalism or gang bangs is much more justifiable to cencor than a flat earthers speech. It's justifiable to cencor information of how to assemble a mini nuclear warhead, or use gene editing CRISPER technology more so than to cencor the flat ewrth thoery and conspiracy theories associated with a flat earth because there's greater harm in collective scale of a nuclear explosion or biological weapon infecting and spreading ti tbe general population, and greater harm in intensity of graphic violant and sexual content cimpared to an outdated flat earth modal.

   Are you a post modernist?

[Leo Gura]

Today there exists more free speech that ever in human history. But don't let that fact interupt your bitching.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Leo Gura

[rnd]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Today there exists more free speech that ever in human history. But don't let that fact interupt your bitching.

Am I bitching or is it you're saying that I'm bitching?

Alright, let's apply the same logic to you:

Today there exists more of scrientific innovation than ever in human history, as well as access to scientific work for ordinary people, including for free. But don't let this fact interupt your bitching whenever you're bitching about science, academia and bureaucracy in them.

Or

Today there exists more of innovation in the medicine than ever in human history. But don't let this fact interupt your bitching whenever you're bitching about big pharma calling them "mafia".

Edited November 25, 2022 by rnd

[rnd]

9 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@rnd

   It depends on the stage of development, cognitive and moral development, personality typing, ego development, life experiences, and other lines of development frim the individual to collective areas of development, worldviews, beliefs, indoctrination and ideological beliefs imprinted into one's mind during their upbringing in their family unit, with cultural, economic, religious/scientific, historical and other societal ideas then told mostly through mainstream media like tv programs and radio and maybe newspapers, also through one's education system and neighbourhood and community in groups. On top of that the mind also ditorts and generalizes reality to suit it's survival agenda and biases it identifies and attached strongly to to derive it's own meaningful life story whilst hallucunating otherness in it's narratives it associates deeply into.

 [ .....]

   Are you a post modernist?

I'm not one, I'm not even familiar with those.

Too difficult -- I'm not this smart.

 

I'll put it this way: if something is called propaganda, why would govenment censor it? For if it was propaganda, it'd so obvious, or almost obvious, that everyone would've identified it as propaganda.

If something gets censored as propaganda, it may very well be that it's not one, but the truth that exposes the uglyness and crime of, let's say, a government. Or of some agent, a group of people, or whoever it may be. Otherwise, why would they would even bother to censor it?

 

In other words: to learn the truth, look at what's being censored.

Edited November 25, 2022 by rnd

[Hatfort]

Not all misinformation is equally relevant.

If I lie online with a fake story of two birds on my roof, who cares, that doesn't have any repercussions. If someone spreads misinformation about a disease or an election result, real cases, you know what I'm talking about, that's different, Flat-Earthers are loonies, but I don't think their ideas have many significant negative repercussions overall, so that's why they may not be de-platformed like others.

That's the job of moderators to value, a machine or an algorithm cannot do it, and there are no clear lines.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, rnd said:

Alright, let's apply the same logic to you:

Today there exists more of scrientific innovation than ever in human history, as well as access to scientific work for ordinary people, including for free. But don't let this fact interupt your bitching whenever you're bitching about science, academia and bureaucracy in them.
 

That's not the same logic.

The fact that there is so much science is the problem. The more science the bigger the problem.

You are a free speech absolutist. I am not a science absolutist.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Eyowey]

People's dependency on the internet is a greater problem than censorship. It's what allows censorship in the first place. We think we need the internet for education and entertainment but name one thing you've learned online that you can't live without. If a teacher can figure things out on their own then so can you. We really don't need the internet. The internet prevents us from using our own mind and body. I'm still gonna use it though. A little bit.

[Girzo]

4 minutes ago, Eyowey said:

A little bit.

Said every drug addict ever. 

[A_v_E]

@Eyowey I would litteraly be dumb as a rock without internet, I've learned almost NOTHING before I decided to seriously use internet for learning.
I doubt my high school degree would have led me to be aware of all the concepts/type of content leo built on his channel for instance
this allowed me to even have interaction with really high quality people.

I learned english only by using internet. ( 98% of it ) And also leo was even my mentor toward improving my english, because he was very clear when he was speaking.
I m litteraly in the bottom class of my society, and I've "elevated" my level of understanding of reality very high ONLY by reading and listening high quality content, and that has been done mainly because I could navigate and use the internet to improve my understanding and self awareness.

my real question is name one intelligent thing you've learned outside internet BESIDE the social aspect of life.

In terms of "knowledge", almost nothing on my part, school was complete brainwashing.
I can listen every audiobook I want at my home or even on my phone.

litteraly internet is the nuclear power of knowledge in the right hands and only creams and butters in the bad ones.

Edited November 25, 2022 by A_v_E

[Eyowey]

@A_v_E English is useful for navigating the internet for sure. Most of the internet is based on language which is very limited. I'm mostly interested in going beyond language. Beyond humanity. It seems like Leo is doing exactly that so I'm sticking around for that.

[John Paul]

Whoever has the power gets to say what’s censored or not. Period.

[A_v_E]

 @Eyowey I've learned a lot to draw/paint by watching kim jung gi on youtube, and same for electronic music which I like and all the new artists and new trendy pioneers are on soundcloud.
I've been able to singe and see a master that live in south korea by the confort of my home on the other side of the world, isn't that fucking bliss & magic to be able to directly see the work in live of a true godtier artist ( rip I m so sad, he is dead last month, and he was really what I call a godtier human.. )

mostly I m "artist/creative" but even without the suggestion about doing doing psychedelic at time, I would have stayed away from LSD and the likes..
 ( I followed leo work before he started psychedelics, and same for me, wasn't into this, I just smoked weed a bit, and that was it, I trusted his judgement and I've done them maybe a year after him )

Litteraly internet is way more than langage, and langage is even capable to show the beyond, if the spells are rightly casted.

leaving this topic aside to not be out of topic, that was just to say you shouldn't underestimate "internet".

Edited November 25, 2022 by A_v_E

[Consept]

The issue today is not so much censorship but the fact that there's so much information and people haven't learnt how to discern what's real and what's not. In terms of mainstream v alternative media, mainstream actually has a lot more limitations on what can be said, there's regulations, they may get sued for false information, defamation etc. 

Alternative media has some restrictions but no where near close to mainstream. Because of the lack of restrictions it means they can post opinions, poorly researched stories or just straight factually wrong information, in fact its more than likely going to be one of these things just because they don't have to research anything.

The idea that just because something is censored it's probably true is nonsense and if I was trying to pump out misinformation, I would probably say that because it would be a win/ win for me, I could say anything false and if it gets censored I could say the mainstream knows its true that's why they censored me. 

To answer the initial point from op, flat earth theory isn't really dangerous to the public, if people want to believe it literally would make no difference to anyone. You can believe whatever you want, but it's when those beliefs cause damage to society or individuals that you have a problem ie believing covid isn't real. 

It's like if you have a son and they believe Harry Potter is real, it doesn't really matter but then if he starts believing he can jump off the roof with a broom you may want to stop him watching Harry Potter until he realises its not real. 

[Eyowey]

2 minutes ago, Consept said:

flat earth theory isn't really dangerous to the public, if people want to believe it literally would make no difference to anyone

It would make a difference if ''earth'' is a bunch of continents with worker slaves and there be uncolonized continents outside of it.

[Jodistrict]

The Internet has provided opportunity for speech that was unavailable until fairly recently.  Now, you can get a larger audience by showing your pet hamster on YouTube than famous politicians received in the 1940s.  Andy Warhol’s “15 minutes of fame” for every human being has literally come true.  A free speech absolutist would say to permit everything.  The other side of the argument acknowledges that bad actors who intentionally spread false information can capture a dominant attention they aren’t naturally entitled to and do a disproportionate harm.

[Eyowey]

17 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

The other side of the argument

Nobody cares about the other side. So arguing / debating will never work. Only physical war works.

[Hello from Russia]

6 hours ago, Eyowey said:

People's dependency on the internet is a greater problem than censorship. It's what allows censorship in the first place. We think we need the internet for education and entertainment but name one thing you've learned online that you can't live without. If a teacher can figure things out on their own then so can you. We really don't need the internet. The internet prevents us from using our own mind and body. I'm still gonna use it though. A little bit.

 No

If internet didn't exist, I would just drawn in a groupthink of a Russian society and be much much different person to the worse

The combo of learning English + internet and consuming more advanced thinkers/cultures was one of the most crucial steps in my development as a human

[rnd]

23 hours ago, Consept said:

The idea that just because something is censored it's probably true is nonsense and if I was trying to pump out misinformation, I would probably say that because it would be a win/ win for me, I could say anything false and if it gets censored I could say the mainstream knows its true that's why they censored me.

"An idea"....

Why not "a scientific experiment with a termonuclear reactor which can only be conducted in labratory  by 5 scientists in the world once in 7 years"?  Therefore, you won't be able to test it youself.

All one has to do to prove you wrong is provide one example wherein censored information has turned out true later on. Or maybe not one, but there're plethora of them anyway. Do you want me to provide such examples?

 

Quote

 I would probably say that because it would be a win/ win for me, I could say anything false and if it gets censored I could say the mainstream knows its true that's why they censored me.

Too simplistic thinking and hence wrong.
You're looking at it as black/white. Well, look  at it as "most of the time, most likely" or "most unlikely", "one more red flag"...  instead

Edited November 26, 2022 by rnd

[Consept]

@rnd would you say information from alternative sources is generally more reliable than mainstream sources? As in better researched, less biased etc