(Title Censored)

Homepage Forums Politics (Title Censored)

This topic contains 156 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 1 month, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 157 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #42652

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Autumn,

    Hate speech legislation at the federal level deals with primarily two things: i) promoting genocide, and ii) vilification/ calumny against an identifiable group. Right off the bat, i) doesn’t apply to the Russian law as reporting on a war is not promotion of genocide. ii) Doesn’t apply because the government is not, for the purposes of law, an ‘identifiable group’.

    Here’s where you are sorely mistaken: Putin claims his invasion of Ukraine was justified by what he claimed was genocide inflicted against ethnic Russians by Ukrainian “Nazis.” (Never mind that ethnic Russians in Ukraine are loyally and bravely fighting for Ukraine against Putin’s invasion. Never mind that Hitler made similar claims about alleged discrimination against ethnic Germans to justify invading Czechoslavakia.)

    Hence, in Putin’s mind, reporting on the fighting, including Putin’s many deadly mistakes with his men and blood atocities against civilians, is harming his invasion efforts to “stop genocide” and hence is enabling genocide.

    And hence, it is not “lazy, irrational fearmongering” to equate censorship from Putin to censorship from Trudeau and other Canadian would-be strong-men.

    Yes, Canada may have some asshole-through-the-ear legal falderal attached to it’s censorship, and yes Russia’s censorship may be by Putin’s decree with rubber-stamping hy members of the Duma who are either Putin “Yes-Men” or too scared to oppose Putin.

    But to the person prosecuted under either censorship law, here is the difference, expressed in precise mathematical terms of decimals, fractions, and integers:

    <-1 x Monkey.Crap / Christ ÷ 0

    Or you could also express the amount as

    <-1 × Sweet.Feathery / Jesus ÷ 0

    Yeah, I know you’re not supposed to use decimals and fractions together in the same numeral, but that just shows how ridiculously little the differnce is: Zero, as in 0 ÷ 0, 0 × 0, 0 + 0, and 0 – 0:

    Literally, not true. Perhaps it would be closer to the truth to say the de facto penalty is ultimately death.

    That’s what I just said! Are you having a Biden moment or are you just being augustly oblivious and gaslighting?

    But lethal force isn’t justified as a penalty except in capital offences and only after a trial. Police are authorized to use lethal force in response to threats, but they are not authorized to carry out summary executions. In practice, an unwillingness to prosecute police for homicide when they abuse their authority leads to corruption. But that isn’t a feature of the system; it’s a flaw of humanity and perhaps evidence for why our policing systems are fundamentally ill-advised.

    Yes, for once, you are right that police are not justified in practicing executions, but they nevertheless do, and they’ll do it more often when law reaches areas where it shouldn’t touch such as the individual’s thoughts and opinions and expressions of fact.

    The people who have been destroying the streets and cities of the U.S. for the past 2 years, really 6 years, will disagree with you about whether brutality is a feature or a bug of the system. But either way, it just underscores that government cannot be trusted to have the powers you and Davis want.

    #42653

    Autumn
    Participant

    Autumn,

    Hate speech legislation at the federal level deals with primarily two things: i) promoting genocide, and ii) vilification/ calumny against an identifiable group. Right off the bat, i) doesn’t apply to the Russian law as reporting on a war is not promotion of genocide. ii) Doesn’t apply because the government is not, for the purposes of law, an ‘identifiable group’.

    Here’s where you are sorely mistaken: Putin claims his invasion of Ukraine was justified by what he claimed was genocide inflicted against ethnic Russians by Ukrainian “Nazis.” (Never mind that ethnic Russians in Ukraine are loyally and bravely fighting for Ukraine against Putin’s invasion.

    It’s like you took the word ‘genocide’ from my post and jammed it into a non sequitur. This is the very sort of speciousness I am talking about. You aren’t going to fool the judicial system in which those hate propaganda statutes exist with that level of argumentation. It’s a legal system which has already addressed the crime of reporting false news. During the trial of Ernst Zündel, a vocal holocaust denier who published and distributed pamphlets to that effect, the Supreme Court determined that the relevant criminal statute against publishing false news was unconstitutional. That law was later repealed as a result.

    The Russian scenario is not applicable as a warning to the sorts of policies I am talking about, and I suspect it is inadequate as a warning to others in this thread. It’s just not analogous. Demonstrably so.

    Literally, not true. Perhaps it would be closer to the truth to say the de facto penalty is ultimately death.

    That’s what I just said! Are you having a Biden moment or are you just being augustly oblivious and gaslighting?

    What you said was “the ultimate penalty for any law is de facto death.” What I said is it would be closer to the truth to say ‘”the de facto penalty is ultimately death”. These are not equivalent.

    #42655

    Davis
    Moderator

    Enco your comparisons of Putin’s war mongering with limited and highly specific and carefully applied hate-laws is ridiculous and tiresome. Try another strategy or perhaps even concede something, even just a little, like once a year or two. It is actually liberating to admit once in a while you can rethink something.

    #42656

    Davis
    Moderator

    Enco your comparisons of Putin’s war mongering with limited and highly specific and carefully applied hate-laws is ridiculous and tiresome. Try another strategy or perhaps even concede something, even just a little, like once a year or two. It is actually liberating to admit once in a while you can rethink something.

    #42658

    Unseen
    Participant

    GREAT NEWS!

    Elon Musk has apparently made an acceptable offer and speech will be free again on Twitter. How free, we’ll have to see, but Twitter was going too far, deplatforming people who wanted to discuss Ukraine’s Nazi problem (which it has, and which was freely discussed prior to the Russian invasion) or people with alternative views on Covid vaccines.

    #42660

    Davis
    Moderator

    Yeay…Twitter can become an even more grotesque platform of brazen disinformation spreading, hate and a platform for Trump to overthrow the government. It is a win for everyone!!! What can go wrong with one person being in control of a monolithic database of everyone’s data with virtually no regulation or oversight!?!?!?

    #42661

    Elon Musk is as concerned with free speech as much as I am concerned with religious traditions. He just wants to stand on the biggest soapbox and own the biggest megaphone. I expect that once the views of the dregs of humanity take over that the advertisers will start to abandon the platform.

    #42662

    Davis
    Moderator

    What Reg said. I cannot understate enough how much of a petty attention seeking douchebag Musk is. He has written no shortage of odd, vile, slanderous, manipulate and creepy tweets. Best thing anyone could do is delete their twitter. I did years ago after having the misfortune of handling the social media for a few departments. The world would be infinitely better without twitter (would have been years ago). Very little value ever comes from it. The harms heavily outweigh the consequences. Twitter and all social media is no ordinary “community space”. It is a hyper toxic echo chamber that brings out the worst in most people, the rapid spread of dangerous ideas and information, highly polemicized and dysfunctional political discourse and, I don’t care what you do with the algorythms…it is extremely manipulative of the political process. There is NOTHING Musk could do (or likely would do) to make their corrosive effects on democracy better. A wise politician would HEAVILY regulate the shit out of social media algorythms and data collection/manipulation.

    I would say a better priority is to send comment sections to the garbage heaps. Virtually NOTHING of value ever comes out of them. Reading comment sections of any kind, anywhere, for any reason lowers your quality of life, intelligence and the well being of society. I am not even slightly exaggerating here.

    #42663

    Unseen
    Participant

    Yeay…Twitter can become an even more grotesque platform of brazen disinformation spreading, hate and a platform for Trump to overthrow the government. It is a win for everyone!!! What can go wrong with one person being in control of a monolithic database of everyone’s data with virtually no regulation or oversight!?!?!?

    Is removing control taking control? Down is up, black is white. Anything is possible in Davis’s world.

    I expect a lot less control over controversial topics like dissenting views on Covid vaccines, shut downs, and masks. These are discussions we should be having.

    Will it be absolutely anything goes? I doubt it. Let’s wait and see. It may not have the limits you’d prefer, but no limits? I don’t think so. Selling illegal drugs, offering children for sex, or selling slaves? I doubt it.

    BTW, Trump said he wouldn’t return to Twitter even if invited. He’ll stick with his TruthSocial.com social media platform. We’ll see, but one thing I know about Trump: He hates criticism, so he may indeed stay away.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Unseen.
    #42665

    Unseen
    Participant

    Elon Musk is as concerned with free speech as much as I am concerned with religious traditions. He just wants to stand on the biggest soapbox and own the biggest megaphone. I expect that once the views of the dregs of humanity take over that the advertisers will start to abandon the platform.

    I think you’re wrongly thinking that he thinks of Twitter as a business investment. I don’t think so. He has probably factored in that he’ll lose some advertisers while gaining others.

    What crazy notions are you thinking he’s wanting to promote? I ask because I can’t think of anything dangerous that he’s advocated so far.

    I’m thinking he’ll probably use Twitter to promote his projects or test trial balloons of projects he’s considering.

    #42666

    Autumn
    Participant

    It’s unclear how much can be done. Of the things Musk has mentioned, some are fine. Going after bots, making the algorithms used to push content transparent or even open source. Whether those will be successful or not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    Misinformation/ disinformation, left or right of the political aisle, it’s been a popular target at various times, one that even legislators have talked about.

    I’m not a Twitter user, so I’m fairly dispassionate about its moderation policies. I am sure they could be improved, but I don’t think it’s always as easy as people make it out to be. The volume of content is so high that quality moderation is unlikely. Whether Twitter moves to more soft bans rather than perma-bans may not make as much difference to making the platform more free. Though certainly decisions on what does or does not get moderated could have an impact.

    Other areas where he’s remained more quiet such as policies on racism, bigotry etc. I suspect Twitter’s legal team would prefer he not rock the boat. Whether Twitter should be liable in certain cases or not, it’s a big target for a legal team to take a swing at if the conditions feel right

    As for whatever Twitter represents to freedom of speech in the first place, on one hand, it’s a global cultural institution and there is no denying the potential for some individuals to gain massive reach through the platform. And yet if all our hopes for freedom of speech were pinned up on a single corporate-owned platform we might have bigger concerns that Twitter policy. Twitter is free to run its service as it pleases with the moderation policies it likes. Under Musk, that doesn’t really change. It is not, conventionally, a freedom of speech issue, and to that extent, I’m not really invested.

    But as many Twitter users—at the prospect of new policies under new management—are on the cusp of fleeing Twittoria to move to digital Canada, the criticism levelled against them is that they don’t like free speech or that they don’t want their ideas to be challenged. And I think that’s likely untrue in most cases. I think what people want to avoid is more replication of an internet experience plagued by frustrated bickering and constant emotional provocation. I think what people want to avoid is more ‘conversations’ that aren’t actually conversations at all, but rather thinly-veiled excuses to dig at one another without actually listening to much of anything that’s said.

    On balance, I think many fear Musk’s vision for the platform, sincere or not, will have no meaningful impact on free speech, but will simple make the platform a less pleasant place to be and more primed for social manipulation tactics.

    #42667

    Unseen
    Participant

    @Everyone

    I don’t use Twitter, either, so if it will be as terrible as some fear, maybe it will implode. The crazies and bigots will always find a way to blabber even if it’s on bulletin boards and similar forums operating in the dark web.

    #42668

    Elon Musk charged with Securities Fraud for misleading Tweets.

    When the story in Thailand about the soccer team trapped in the cave in 2018 was in the news Musk tweeted that the cave diver who went to rescue them was a pedophile. This is because he had disparaged the mini submarine Musk had provided them as a publicity stunt. Musk later apologies (via twitter) when his share prices started to fall due to public disgust over the vulgar tweet.

    Twitter already has a serious racism problem. There are plenty of articles written about this.  One here and another here about Black Tesla workers experiences.

    Do we even remember Missy Cummings?

    I could furnish more examples but my main concern is that Musk is not the person to fix any problems with Free Speech. He seems to have no concept of Positive and Negative Liberty as Isaiah Berlin once wrote about.  As a recent NYT article puts it:

    The freedom to speak without restraint by powerful authorities, is the only freedom of speech. And so freeing Nazis to Nazi, misogynists to bully and harass and doxx and brigade women, even former president Donald Trump to possibly get his Twitter account back — this cutting of restraints becomes the whole of the project.

    But there is also what we may call positive freedom of speech: affirmative steps to create conditions that allow all people to feel and be free to say what they think.

    Legally speaking, all American women or people of color or both who were ever talked over in a meeting or denied a book contract or not hired to give their opinion on television enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. The constitutional protection of speech does not, on its own, engender a society in which the chance to be heard is truly abundant and free and equitably distributed.

    “Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep,” Mr. Berlin once said. This is a point often lost on Americans. Government — or large centralized authority — is one threat to liberty but not the only one. When it comes to speech, what has often kept a great many people from speaking isn’t censorship but the lack of a platform. Social media, including Twitter, came along and promised to change that. But when it became a cesspit of hate and harassment for women and people of color in particular, it began to offer a miserable bargain: You can be free to say what you wish, but your life can be made unrelentingly painful if you so dare.

    The “censorship” that Mr. Musk performatively deplores consists of efforts to rectify these very real problems of harassment and abuse. Twitter has taken modest but wildly inadequate steps to improve safety on the platform. It has acknowledged it has a problem. It has recognized positive freedom of speech — the creation of a safe and non-life-ruining environment for the airing of thoughts. And it is this that Mr. Musk and his ilk seem to loathe.

    This is why his deal to purchase Twitter is so dangerous. In recent years, there has been progress toward positive freedom of speech — real work to give everyone, truly everyone, more meaningful occasion to speak. Mr. Musk apparently wants to shut that down. Instead, in a moment of proto-fascism on the political right, his priority seems to be to undam the flood of bile and bigotry and bullying and disinformation.

    The country already faces the very real prospect, starting at noon on Jan. 20, 2025, of a descent toward racist authoritarianism and a protracted slide away from liberal democracy. If your idea of what the country needs in this moment is less clamping down on hate and lies and more rightists gone wild, whew.

    The plutocrats have already rigged the economy. That’s just the first step. Then you take some of the spoils and reinvest it in buying even more political influence, so that political inequality can help keep economic inequality yawning. You buy up media or social media platforms and thus can help rig the discourse in your favor, taking control of the tools used by regular people to fight back. You venture, as Mr. Musk did, to a TED conference and, without much push-back, brand yourself as a kind of public intellectual, a thought leader, a visionary, and thereby in many people’s minds you became a sage, not a robber baron.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. We can have nice things. But we’re going to have to learn to see through the fraudulent stories that elevate figures like Mr. Musk into heroes. We’re going to have to legislate real guardrails — perhaps like those created by the European Union’s Digital Services Act — on social media platforms that are too big to entrust democracy to. We’re going to have to build non-profit alternatives to the platforms and see if they can become meaningful venues.

    Because a society that outsources the tending of its social interactions to people who behave like sociopaths is a society asking not for freedom but for tyranny. Elon Musk is a problem masquerading as a solution.

    #42669

    Unseen
    Participant

    A variety of leftish takes on Musk’s acquisition of Twitter:

    And here’s why Twitter won’t change as much as you may fear:

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Unseen.
    #42671

    Unseen
    Participant

    C’mon everyone. Twitter will have moderation because Elon has lawyers who’ll tell him how he could end up in trouble and who’ll ask him how much time he wants to take away from his many projects sitting down for depositions.

    Jake?

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 157 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.