Thought for the Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

To answer your other question, I would only be in favor of temporarily shutting down a platform if law enforcement becomes aware of its incitement leading to criminal activity. Other than, I'm not in favor of deplatforming an individual or a site. I rather these people be out in open where their nonsense can be seen and challenged when need be. Its been a couple of weeks since Parlor has been shut down and I'm not sure if the world is a better and/or safer place for it.

---

I think temporary shutdowns only work if the problem is relatively limited and the offenders are open to changing their behaviour. My understanding is that discussion of violence on some of these sites has been rife because they don't do any moderation, which is the very reason why extremists use them. What would you propose to do about sites like Parler that refuse to do any self-regulation?

As for the idea that you let the crazy talk run free and just try to debunk it, that is what we've been doing and it hasn't worked too well (exhibit A: the stolen election lie). The problem is that the effort required to debunk a lie is much greater than the effort required to initiate it - and some people are happy to believe any lie that suits their prejudices. As Mark Twain may or may not have said, a lie can travel halfway around the world and back before the truth can put its shoes on.

Here's where your analogy with the town square or street corner breaks down. In the pre-digital world there was small percentage of crazies but most of them were lone nutters because it was difficult for them to find fellow crazies with similar ideas. The internet has made it so much easier for them to find like-minded people who can reinforce each others ideas and coordinate activities.. Trying to apply pre-digital rules to this situation seems like trying to apply horse and cart rules to the era of the motor car.

So I think we do need a different approach. I don't know what that is exactly, but it has to involve websites being forced to take more responsibility for content posted by their users. It's not at all clear why conventional book or newspaper publishers are held legally responsible for what appears in their publications but internet publishers should be completely exempt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Having said that, I have mixed feelings about whether or not people should have their accounts suspended. Yes, Twitter is a private company and it can be viewed as a luxury and not a necessity. Although depending on what industry you work in, that's not always the case.
I have always viewed Twitter as the digital version of the town square or a street corner. In essence, you're going to hear and see some crazy shit. In those instances, we usually ignored the batshit ramblings of the individual and went about our day. But what do you about people who chose to stand there (or in this case follow the individual(s)) and continue to listen and start to believe the ramblings. Who should be digital version of the officer on beat who goes, "Okay, break it up nothing to see here."
Should it continue to be the private company that runs site. I'm good with that. But I think instead of suspending the account or permanently banning the person, I say just remove the questionable post and/or tweet. Especially when it comes to ones that are considered to be spreading misinformation.


"But, as discussed on the BBC news this lunchtime, does this mean the regulation, by law, of social media? And if platforms become engines of hate, misinformation, lies and incitement, shut them down? At what point does free speech become a threat to freedom itself?"

To answer your other question, I would only be in favor of temporarily shutting down a platform if law enforcement becomes aware of its incitement leading to criminal activity. Other than, I'm not in favor of deplatforming an individual or a site. I rather these people be out in open where their nonsense can be seen and challenged when need be. Its been a couple of weeks since Parlor has been shut down and I'm not sure if the world is a better and/or safer place for it.

---

I think we can agree that the growth of social media has outpaced the ability of the law to control it, and that so far it has been the 'self-regulation' of the platforms that has censored content or banned users if they do not comply with the values of the owners -I have had posts deleted by The Guardian not because of the content as much as the use of a word or a phrase that their algorithm has identified as being objectionable. The Guardian has amended it to enable posts to include the F word, whereas in The Telegraph this is not possible, just as it is not possible to identify the Metropolitan Police Commissioner (the Senior Police Officer in England) by her name, Cressida Dick.

This is a trival example, but does show that Online newspapers in particular attempt to edit their online content as they do their print version, and this is in stark contrast to what happens elsewhere, though I believe Instagram does not allow the nudity that Twitter does. It means that there is no integrated approach to onliine content, and most people believe this is as it should be, and I think to some extent yes, it helps to know what people are saying, if, as was the case of the various militia groups who broadcast their intention to 'get rough' in Washington DC, their plan seems to have been ignored by the law enforcement who, forewarned might have done a better job of protecting the Capitol.

Foucault would probably describe it as the horizontal expansion of power, and in a democracy, because everyone has a voice, and an equal voice, it would appear to be wrong to shut it down. The dilemma that exists, and existed before social media, is that democracy gives everyone a voice, including those who don't believe in it. We had this fruitless debate in the last 20 years when so-called 'Radical Muslims' were using an open democracy to campagn against it, raising questions still pertinent to some, about the loyalty of Muslims to the State in which they live, though the people raising these questions just don't like Muslims and ignore the polls in the UK that reveal most Muslim immigrants love the Queen, and tend to be conservatives with regard to taxation, same-sex marriage, and tend to think they are safer in a country that has nuclear weapons.

In the US, the threat needs to be identified. I don't know if Trump wants to create a new party, or is using it as a threat to bully Republicans into supporting him. He has no real interest in politics, though, but is obsessed with hiimself as a major figure, and doesn't seem to care if he relies for his support on people who don't believe in its current form, American Democracy meets their needs and desires -but what are they? Are these not people who don't believe in Government because they would not know how to govern if they were 'in power'? Do they believe they can re-create the Frontier days when there was no law, no government, no taxes in those parts of the West where they went to get away from politics? It seems to me to be a form of political nihiism, and I don't object to them expressing their views though I suspect the practical result is that they don't vote, and resent Government and taxes and all that.

The really dangerous people either don't use social media, or opt for the 'dark web' or an equivalence of anonymity and cryptic messaging, and are most likely to take the route Timothy McVeigh and his supporters took, in inflicting maximum physical damage they can, being otherwise impotent. This time, the 'mob' that stormed the Capitol was either too scared, or just not properly organized and armed enough to murder the people they wanted to -assuming the 'Hang Mike Pence' was a real threat, and that some had they been able to, would have targeted Nancy Pelosi and membes of the 'Squad' -they failed this time, but will they try again?

I don't think censoring Trump will make much difference in the long run as he can find other ways to appeal to his followers, though I wonder how much more rage and indignation the Americans can deal with, and think four years of shouting is enough, already.

One other option is for Biden to restore the Fair Broadcasting Rules that forced broadcasters to balance opinion, it is ironic or not that Murdoch was a key mover of this in 1987, yet his precious Fox News is now under attack from the very people he wanted to give a voice to.

Thus, the two outstanding issues are the covert organization of anti-Democratic forces in the US, which I assume are infiltrated by the FBI, and the ongoing attempt by Government -not it seems, the Biden Administration- to control the Internet -in this regard I would appreciate a view from filghy2 on Scott Morrison's conflict with Google and Facebook in Australia. India cut off the internet in Kashmir a year or so ago, and it is regularly shut down or websites made inaccessible in China. Trump wanted the law changed so internet platfroms could be sued, and so on. Whatever it is, democracy to survive has to find a way to deal with extremists, and to the extent that the platforms themselves are asked to do it, why change their control of their rules?

A private company's actions are not treated like the actions of the government for good reason. There is a special danger when the government regulates the content of speech because they thwart the ways in which people can resist their tyranny.

But that comes at the cost of being able to limit the dissemination of views that are undoubtedly harmful: that racism is justified, that Bill Gates is trying to put transponders in people's heads, or that the world is run by a cabal of Jews. In the case of the government, such a cost is worth the benefits. But what is the consequence of preventing private parties from disassociating from repellent views? Or even worse forcing them to broadcast them? It is an epistemological crisis and quite possibly the end of any sort of discourse.

The number of restrictions we place on private companies are limited. It took us nearly two hundred years to pass the civil rights act. It is an incredible twist that the party that has many members who are skeptical about civil rights laws want racists to have protections they would deny their victims. But imagine even thinking their treatment should be the same. One person excludes a Black person from their business. Is this the same as a proprietor excluding someone for saying Hillary Clinton is a pedophile who molests children in a pizza parlor? It's offensive and incoherent.

I don't see twitter as having more obligations than a book publisher. The government can't prohibit people from speaking but they also can't force people to help disseminate their views. If a person is on a street corner, they might see hundreds or thousands of people in a day. If they are on twitter they are broadcasting to millions. Do radio channels have to broadcast neo-nazis? Do book publishers have to publish everyone who can't afford to self-publish? Does twitter have to publish or allow people to remain on their site if they find their views dangerous? No.

The people being banned from twitter are being banned for spreading conspiracy theories, spreading public health misinformation, and saying racist things. Nobody has to host that and the way to deal with companies being too large is through anti-trust regulation perhaps but not forcing companies to host nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It is an incredible twist that the party that has many members who are skeptical about civil rights laws want racists to have protections they would deny their victims.

---

It's also interesting to contrast the treatment of right-wing extremism with the treatment of Islamic extremism. The potential threat from the former appears to be just as great - maybe greater because the number of sympathisers is larger. Since 9/11 there has been a zero tolerance policy towards Islamic extremism, with little consideration for the rights of those affected (even basic due process rights have been set aside). Yet very few of the freedom advocates have offered any word of complaint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Thus, the two outstanding issues are the covert organization of anti-Democratic forces in the US, which I assume are infiltrated by the FBI, and the ongoing attempt by Government -not it seems, the Biden Administration- to control the Internet -in this regard I would appreciate a view from filghy2 on Scott Morrison's conflict with Google and Facebook in Australia.

---

That's a different issue because it's about forcing them to pay news providers for their content rather than actually controlling the content. I don't think that is about internet freedom any more than it would be if the government was forcing them to pay more tax. It is actually the companies that are threatening to reduce our internet freedom by deplatforming the whole country for the sake of their financial interests. I think the government will call their bluff, becasue if they make good on their threat they may find that people can do without them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

It's also interesting to contrast the treatment of right-wing extremism with the treatment of Islamic extremism. The potential threat from the former appears to be just as great - maybe greater because the number of sympathisers is larger. Since 9/11 there has been a zero tolerance policy towards Islamic extremism, with little consideration for the rights of those affected (even basic due process rights have been set aside). Yet very few of the freedom advocates have offered any word of complaint.

---

100%. What Muslims faced after 9/11-violations of 4th amendment rights (search and seizure), 5th amendment (due process), and 6th amendment (right to speedy trial). These were real constitutional violations that our Justice Department made excuses about and invoked all sorts of novel arguments to try to get around. The freedom advocates, as I'm sure you suspect, have an argument only under a reading of the Constitution that no federal court to my knowledge has adopted.

I find it interesting that many of the arguments on the right are kind of post-modern when it comes to whether there's such a thing as absolute truth. They object to critical race theory, for example, because it includes techniques such as "naming one's own truth". But I've heard a number of them saying we should place some value on the fact that they have a bona fide belief that there was election fraud. Republicans who are now unwilling to support these bogus allegations will say stuff like "but confidence about elections is at an all time low" or "the voters really believe there are discrepancies". It's like they want us to accept their personal truth and in this case there's no objective evidence supporting it.

Even their objections to "cancel culture" seem to rely on the fact that we can't trust anybody to make any fair judgment about anything. It's like, have you considered that this Neo-Nazi just has a viewpoint? Who gave you the power to say they are wrong?

In closing I really find their view of what private business owners have a right to do repugnant. What kind of society is it they want? A private business owner

can-exclude gay people

cannot-exclude people refusing to wear a mask during a pandemic

cannot-ban someone from a website they own and manage for inciting violence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

In closing I really find their view of what private business owners have a right to do repugnant. What kind of society is it they want? A private business owner

can-exclude gay people

cannot-exclude people refusing to wear a mask during a pandemic

cannot-ban someone from a website they own and manage for inciting violence

---

It says a lot about some peoples' warped values that they are more concerned about people of the same sex loving each other than they are about bigots threatening violence. Also, that they care more about unborn foetuses than they do about saving people's lives once they are born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

It's also interesting to contrast the treatment of right-wing extremism with the treatment of Islamic extremism. The potential threat from the former appears to be just as great - maybe greater because the number of sympathisers is larger. Since 9/11 there has been a zero tolerance policy towards Islamic extremism, with little consideration for the rights of those affected (even basic due process rights have been set aside). Yet very few of the freedom advocates have offered any word of complaint.

---

This puts it into perspective. On 9/11, the passengers of Flight 93 fought back and crashed the plane in Pennsylvania because the hijackers planned to crash into the Capital building.

19 years later, citizens of this country stormed the same building in an attempt to stop the democratic process from taking place. I can guarantee that many of those individuals rightfully celebrated the actions of those passengers.

This report shows that the great majority or terrorist incidents in the USA are committed by right-wing extremists. https://www.csis.org/analysis/escala...-united-states
Apart from the single event of 9/11, they have also been responsible for the most deaths.

"In analyzing fatalities from terrorist attacks, religious terrorism has killed the largest number of individuals—3,086 people—primarily due to the attacks on September 11, 2001, which caused 2,977 deaths. The magnitude of this death toll fundamentally shaped U.S. counterterrorism policy over the past two decades. In comparison, right-wing terrorist attacks caused 335 deaths, left-wing attacks caused 22 deaths, and ethnonationalist terrorists caused 5 deaths.

To evaluate the ongoing threat from different types of terrorists, however, it is useful to consider the proportion of fatalities attributed to each type of perpetrator annually. In 14 of the 21 years between 1994 and 2019 in which fatal terrorist attacks occurred, the majority of deaths resulted from right-wing attacks. In eight of these years, right-wing attackers caused all of the fatalities, and in three more—including 2018 and 2019—they were responsible for more than 90 percent of annual fatalities. Therefore, while religious terrorists caused the largest number of total fatalities, right-wing attackers were most likely to cause more deaths in a given year."

Here's another thing that epitomises the moral black hole the Republican Party has gone down. Republicans who hold Trump accountable for inciting violent insurrection are being threatened with punishment while an odious conspiracy theorist is rewarded with committee positions.
https://www.vox.com/22254103/marjori...facebook-posts