Censorship Fallacies

[EvMetro]

So even USMB is free to censor us, but it is corrupt. Got it.

Usmb can legally censor us, even if it is corrupt in doing so. It's called censorship when they do it. The rules actually state that we have the "right" to express our ideas here, but there is nothing stopping the censorship team from exploiting the rules.

That the platforms have a right to monitor content, that doesn't mean they have an obligation to do so.

Correct.

When the government puts the obligation to publish or not to publish something (not based on national security or decency standards) that imo, is corrupt censorship and a violation of the First.

When the government uses censorship or outsources it to do what they aren't supposed to do, it is illegal AND it is censorship.

 

[EvMetro]

If the government overstepped it's lanes then surely a court case will remedy that.

I am surprised that there hasn't been a case yet.

Indeed. In a landmark 1973 case, Norwood v. Harrison, the Supreme Court held that government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

 

[EvMetro]

I shoud give credit to airplanemechanic for inspiring me to post censorship fallacy #1 in the first post. He confused rights to free speech with the definition of censorship on another thread, but many other lefties have made the same mistake.

 

[EvMetro]

The First Amendment does not guarantee you a free venue or an audience.

This thread is not about the first amendment, it is about censorship. Are you confusing censorship with the first ammendment? See fallacy #1 in the opening post.

 

[whitehall]

The 1st Amendment is meaningless when information sources in the mainstream media become the self serving propaganda arm of the democrat party. It's what we have now and it's been true since FDR placed the media under federal control during WW2.

 

[EvMetro]

...Whenever the state privatizes, and manages the nation through private industry, that is the fascist model. Achieving the goals of the national government through private corporations, and private non-governmental organizations, avoids civil guarantees that are codified in the state laws....

Your entire post was excellent, but I especially appreciate the way you packaged this part. As most have probably noticed on this site, I am particularly outspoken about politically motivated censorship, so I've had my eyes on how the government has been outsourcing censorship to private industry. Your post takes this to the next level, so bravo!

 

[whitehall]

The ironic thing is that Americans can't tell if their free speech 1st Amendment rights are violated if the mainstream media's self censorship ignores it or takes the side of censorship to promote a certain political ideology. Combine it with a generation that is ignorant of the Constitution and ten million illegal aliens and you have a recipe for Orwell's 1984.

 

[JasonAlcor]

1. The notion that censorship is not censorship if it isn't done by the government.

This is when people confuse the first amendment right that protects freedom of speech with the act of censoring. If the government uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is called censorship. Illegal censorship, but still censorship. If private industry uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is still called censorship. Yes, private industry can legally censor, but it is still called censorship.

Here is how Wikipedia defines censorship, notice that it has nothing to do with any constitutional rights or legal vs illegal. It is what it is.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

"If private industry uses censorship to suppress freedom of speech, it is still called censorship. Yes, private industry can legally censor, but it is still called censorship."


Except that some of the so called "PRIVATE" industry (illusion of) is simply just an extension of government under the cloak of "PRIVATE" ownership when the said CEO's are doing the governments "CENSORSHIP" bidding.

Examples:

GOOGLE
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
All MSM News Outlets.

 

[EvMetro]

The ironic thing is that Americans can't tell if their free speech 1st Amendment rights are violated if the mainstream media's self censorship ignores it or takes the side of censorship to promote a certain political ideology. Combine it with a generation that is ignorant of the Constitution and ten million illegal aliens and you have a recipe for Orwell's 1984.

Indeed, great insight. Most people cannot see this broad perspective, but it is spot on. This is one of the many things that drive my persistent loudmouthing about censorship around here. There are only a few of us here who understand the broader implications of a little censorship here and there.

 

[Natural Citizen]

OP, I'll tell you something I never really talk about. In fact, this will likely be the only time I'll ever mention it on here. It's just that I've seen so many of your threads about censorship and they always kind of go the same route, with lots of relevant variables always remaining absent from dialogue. As it is, these discussions are so often driven by emotion. It's human nature, I suppose. So that's why these variables are so often absent from dialogue.

Here's what I'll say. And what I'm basing it on is nothing more than pure experience in being involved with certain political endeavors. There are many functions involved with those sorts of serious endeavors, particularly when you're using social media for messaging and evaluating various platforms to maybe learn which ones are sufficient and which ones aren't. It's very strategic. It's very important to understand the nature of a given platform, as well as how people interact and just all sorts of things. How the content is managed. What content exists. Who or what outside entity is feeding/stimulating it. Etc...

So. Web site review. A lot of people think that just means going on some gripe site like site jabber or whatever where they let you complain about a forum you don't like. And there's always a rep from said forum on there defending his castle and it's always the same cookie-cutter arguments. Just dumb shit really.

But. There's also real web site review. It's a very technical process. Think tank type stuff. And I'll spare you the reasoning in having to do that and the criteria involved, depending on how it may be useful for an intended function. But real web site review exists.

Anyway. As I said, there's no useful purpose in blowing off twenty paragraphs explaining every aspect of it. So not gonna.

I will, however, share a white paper with you for the purpose of your own research on the topic. In this example a random forum was reviewed and the particular review was specific to usership interaction, how that influences moderation, human nature, and just that sort of thing. Again, the actual process of true web site review is far more complex than just evaluating moderation and usership. But, since you're all talking about that particular aspect of things, I'll just share that paper on that one single aspect which was reviewed.

View of Perceptions of Censorship and Moderation Bias in Political Debate Forums

Perceptions of Censorship and Moderation Bias in Political Debate Forums | Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media

Now that's a general review. It is not a review by any political entity which would seek out platforms to measure content and usership/moderation interaction against their own endeavor. Consider it a general template.

It's a bit of a read, but it does touch on a lot of things that are so often neglected in these kinds of discussions whenever they pop up on here. Besides, what else are you doing anyway if you're on here?

 

[MisterBeale]

The 1st Amendment is meaningless when information sources in the mainstream media become the self serving propaganda arm of the democrat party. It's what we have now and it's been true since FDR placed the media under federal control during WW2.

Your entire post was excellent, but I especially appreciate the way you packaged this part. As most have probably noticed on this site, I am particularly outspoken about politically motivated censorship, so I've had my eyes on how the government has been outsourcing censorship to private industry. Your post takes this to the next level, so bravo!

Except that some of the so called "PRIVATE" industry (illusion of) is simply just an extension of government under the cloak of "PRIVATE" ownership when the said CEO's are doing the governments "CENSORSHIP" bidding.

Since the written word was invented, to the publishing of books, then the newspaper and magazine industry, then mass TEE VEE and movie media, and now the internet, the cultural, economic, and political elites, necessarily, have always had an epistemological paradigm while ruling over the masses, which requires creating "narratives."

Any time new form form of media is created, it flourishes, before there is a period of consolidation and control, by those who control the greater levers of society.

It happens. Again and again and again.

"History rarely repeats itself, but its echoes never go away."
~Tariq Ali

The Media Matrix

I was going to post this in my Stay Informed thread, but it seems like it is a terrific, multi-part documentary that is not to be missed. I also thought about putting it into the philosophy section, or the history section, for it is more, really about the history, and evolution of how media has...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[EvMetro]

Since the written word was invented, to the publishing of books, then the newspaper and magazine industry, then mass TEE VEE and movie media, and now the internet, the cultural, economic, and political elites, necessarily, have always had an epistemological paradigm while ruling over the masses, which requires creating "narratives."

Any time new form form of media is created, it flourishes, before there is a period of consolidation and control, by those who control the greater levers of society.

It happens. Again and again and again.

"History rarely repeats itself, but its echoes never go away."
~Tariq Ali

The Media Matrix

I was going to post this in my Stay Informed thread, but it seems like it is a terrific, multi-part documentary that is not to be missed. I also thought about putting it into the philosophy section, or the history section, for it is more, really about the history, and evolution of how media has...

www.usmessageboard.com

I browsed the thread link that you posted, and there is a lot of video for me to catch up with, including the Natural Citizen links at the end of it that he posted here. It looks like both you and Natural Citizen have left some great information, I'll dig into it. It looks like it is up my alley.

 

[Man of Ethics]

The only thing I can say is that I hope Free Speech Media overcomes all the hurdles placed on it by Enemies of Freedom and succeeds.

It does not depend on any of us. It depends on big players, like Elon Musk and perhaps Vladimir Putin.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Usmb can legally censor us, even if it is corrupt in doing so. It's called censorship when they do it. The rules actually state that we have the "right" to express our ideas here, but there is nothing stopping the censorship team from exploiting the rules.

Fortunately, USMB is one of the few places online where there is Free Speech.

 

[EvMetro]

Fortunately, USMB is one of the few places online where there is Free Speech.

Thanks for opening the door to the next censorship fallacy that I'd like to discuss.

3. If I don't see it, it isn't happening:

The bulk of censorship happens invisibly, so of course we don't see it. The very meaning of censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. Just because you don't see it after it is suppressed, doesn't mean it isn't happening. This very community IS heavily censored, and the bulk of it happens from the veil of anonymity, and from behind a wall of authority.
Censorship by nature is already difficult to see, but it is even more difficult to see if your ideology relies upon censorship. If we research censorship threads on this site, we will see that all the lefty replies on all the threads about censorship support and defend censorship. This fight to promote the notion that censorship isn't happening here makes it even MORE difficult to see it.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Thanks for opening the door to the next censorship fallacy that I'd like to discuss.

3. If I don't see it, it isn't happening:

The bulk of censorship happens invisibly, so of course we don't see it. The very meaning of censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. Just because you don't see it after it is suppressed, doesn't mean it isn't happening. This very community IS heavily censored, and the bulk of it happens from the veil of anonymity, and from behind a wall of authority.

NO! USMB is as free as web hosts allow USMB to be. Most posters here would be banned on Major Social Media.