Far right hate speech. What should be done?

[Common Soldier]

The government has released a white paper under which online content that is not illegal will be censored if judged to be harmful, such as misinformation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47826946


What’s everyone’s thoughts on this?

What the government proposes sounds reasonable on the surface but would be dangerous in practice. What would be considered harmful or misinformation? If a skeptic challenged the claims of Climate e Change proponents, would their arguments be labeled dangerous misinformation? Would the claims.of an Armenian Genocide be considered dangerous misinformation? Or challenges to China's claim to Tibet and arguments for the independence of Tibet? Or if people of the opposite spectrum are in charge, could the "hockey stick" graph be banned as dangerous misinformation, or claims of police shootings?


Censorship can lead to a slippery slope, and we need to be very careful before we start implementing it. It would need to be clearly defined what is considered misinformation and dangerous. The government could use these powers to ban criticism of the government on the excuse they promoted dangerous misinformation.

[Heathen Hammer]

and we willingly gave them that influence

No, we willingly get their services. Nobody elected Zuckerberg or whoever are Twitter/Google CEOs. Therefore they shouldn't be able to make political decisions.

[Aexodus]

Therefore they shouldn't be able to make political decisions.

What kind of political decisions?

[Gaidin]

What kind of political decisions?

He thinks Facebook makes political decisions. At any point another company can provide solid market competition to Twitter with a similar product. Or Facebook. Right now all different companies do is provide unique products with specifically different uses than Facebook(see LinkedIn). Or they provide similar uses geared toward smaller communities instead of the public at large. But all Facebook and Twitter do is provide a product. They don't make political decisions.

He doesn't even understand the kind of company Google is and its relationship with its owner. Despite multiple explanations in this thread.

[Aexodus]

Well Gab is a competitor, but when the market colludes to crowd them out and ban them I do find that incredibly objectionable. We can say what we like about monopolies and oligopolies, but if ISPs start to selectively remove certain sites that can cause problems.

[Vanoi]

So basically you think that what can be said on the Internet should be determined by corporate oligopolies? So much for freedom of speech.

The internet is not owned by any corporation. The internet is much much more than just social media. You have tried this claim before and once again its easy to shoot down.

[Heathen Hammer]

What kind of political decisions?

By getting to say what kind of content could be posted as per its political aspect if media they control is used by significant amount of population.

The internet is not owned by any corporation. The internet is much much more than just social media. You have tried this claim before and once again its easy to shoot down.

You didn't really shoot it down since significant amount of population uses only few media sites, so my statement is correct: if big tech oligopolies aren't forced to give platform to everyone, they effectively get to dictate what can be said on the Internet and thus gain political power without any limitations in that regard.

[Aexodus]

You didn't really shoot it down since significant amount of population uses only few media sites

Tell me what’s stopping them using other sites.

[Axalon]

Tell me what’s stopping them using other sites.

Laziness and ignorance? ...?...

- A

[Gaidin]

Laziness and ignorance? ...?...

- A

Uninteresting. When a law is passed saying they can't use other sites I'll be a bit more worried.

[Heathen Hammer]

Tell me what’s stopping them using other sites.

Lack of other sites, oligopoly collusion (i.e. what happened to gab), etc.

[Vanoi]

You didn't really shoot it down since significant amount of population uses only few media sites,

Source? Media is a broad term. Going to be hard to prove that. Going to love to see you prove that the vast majority of Internet users only browse a couple media websites and nothing more.

so my statement is correct: if big tech oligopolies aren't forced to give platform to everyone, they effectively get to dictate what can be said on the Internet and thus gain political power without any limitations in that regard.

No its not. Their platforms are theirs, and social media is but one small part of the internet. Controlling Twitter does not mean you control the internet no matter how much you keep claiming that.

We've also been over how most Americans consider information on social media to be highly inaccurate to the idea that these social media giants control any real flow of information or actually influence people's political choices is also .

If newspapers and TV were not forced to make their platforms public for everyone, neither should social media.

[Aexodus]

In fairness a conversation on how much power anyone should have on who is allowed on the internet itself is worth having. Take for example the UK government threatening to ban certain websites from the UK. Also, the plight of “Gab” shows us the power of ISPs.

We've also been over how most Americans consider information on social media to be highly inaccurate to the idea that these social media giants control any real flow of information or actually influence people's political choices is also .

I suppose that means not only is fake news not a problem, but Russia wasted its time in 2016.

[Gaidin]

In fairness a conversation on how much power anyone should have on who is allowed on the internet itself is worth having. Take for example the UK government threatening to ban certain websites from the UK. Also, the plight of “Gab” shows us the power of ISPs.

You see the difference between the two right? One is government action.

Also, which ISPs are screwing with Gab. Everything on this page hints at competition between similar corporate product for which mass amounts of users just currently prefer one over the other. But not an ISP outright blocking access.

[Aexodus]

Yeah well Gab’s ISP just outright blocked them yes.

You see the difference between the two right? One is government action.

Another difference is that you can choose your ISP but not your country. Tbh there the differences end.

[Gaidin]

Yeah well Gab’s ISP just outright blocked them yes.

This was five months ago and why they were blocked for entertaining hate speech by private ISPs. Again. Which ISP just blocked them. Put up or drop it.

Another difference is that you can choose your ISP but not your country. Tbh there the differences end.

Yes. When a government wades in I'll entertain the argument. It's why I give a damn about my first amendment and why I'm shocked you guys haven't weaseled your way into something similar yet. Our government can't do this. Yours can.

Private corporations, companies, and entities can get in the mudslinging fights all day long.

[Heathen Hammer]

Source? Media is a broad term. Going to be hard to prove that. Going to love to see you prove that the vast majority of Internet users only browse a couple media websites and nothing more.

Out of all social media sites, Facebook is more popular, out of all video-hosting sites, youtube is more popular, this stuff is common knowledge.

No its not. Their platforms are theirs, and social media is but one small part of the internet. Controlling Twitter does not mean you control the internet no matter how much you keep claiming that.

We've also been over how most Americans consider information on social media to be highly inaccurate to the idea that these social media giants control any real flow of information or actually influence people's political choices is also .

If newspapers and TV were not forced to make their platforms public for everyone, neither should social media.

Controlling media used by significant amount of users is controlling significant part of the Internet. I'm talking about society's capacity to exchange ideas, which big tech oligopolies are attempting to severely decrease. Not to mention that them being privately owned is not an excuse. De-facto any entity that has political power has governing abilities, so corporate censorship is just as dangerous as such by states, especially if small number of oligopolies controls most of it.

[Vanoi]

I suppose that means not only is fake news not a problem, but Russia wasted its time in 2016.

Fake news exists outside of social media itself so you might want to try again.

Out of all social media sites, Facebook is more popular, out of all video-hosting sites, youtube is more popular, this stuff is common knowledge.

Except you didn't say social media. You said media itself. You can't weasel out of your claim here. If its common knowledge, it can be sourced right?

Oh and we have went over this before. Facebook being the most popular means nothing. You still have Reddit, Snapchat, Twitter, Discord, Tik Tok, ect.

And we have been over the fact Americans at least don't trust information on social media. So its influence is overblown.

Controlling media used by significant amount of users is controlling significant part of the Internet.

And this is based on what? The Internet is one of the most vast things ever created and you really want to try to claim with zero proof that social media is most of it? Porn if anything comprises most of the Internet.

Social media itself over the entire Internet is spread out. Your argument completely falls apart when you include foreign social media.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...mber-of-users/

This chart shows alone there is no oligopoly of social media.

I'm talking about society's capacity to exchange ideas, which big tech oligopolies are attempting to severely decrease.

The exchange of ideas doesn't require social media at all nor has it slowed since people share billions of stories everyday. You want to be able to share everything. Those companies have aright to restrict content on their platforms. No different than TV or newspapers.

Not to mention that them being privately owned is not an excuse. De-facto any entity that has political power has governing abilities, so corporate censorship is just as dangerous as such by states, especially if small number of oligopolies controls most of it.

They don't though. Social media has influence, but not political power. TV and newspapers had the same influence. Yet no one was calling for them to be completely unrestricted platforms.

Corporate censorship is not really a problem to me. As proven above, all social media in the world is not controlled by a small number of companies.

[Heathen Hammer]

Except you didn't say social media. You said media itself. You can't weasel out of your claim here. If its common knowledge, it can be sourced right?

Oh and we have went over this before. Facebook being the most popular means nothing. You still have Reddit, Snapchat, Twitter, Discord, Tik Tok, ect.

And we have been over the fact Americans at least don't trust information on social media. So its influence is overblown.

Semantics. Not to mention that pretty much all platforms you mentioned implement political censorship.
[quote]
And this is based on what? The Internet is one of the most vast things ever created and you really want to try to claim with zero proof that social media is most of it? Porn if anything comprises most of the Internet.

Social media itself over the entire Internet is spread out. Your argument completely falls apart when you include foreign social media.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...mber-of-users/

This chart shows alone there is no oligopoly of social media.
[/wuote]
I'm clearly talking about political discourse, which is expressed on social media and not on porno websites, so again, you didn't really disprove anything that I said.

The exchange of ideas doesn't require social media at all nor has it slowed since people share billions of stories everyday. You want to be able to share everything. Those companies have aright to restrict content on their platforms. No different than TV or newspapers.

Huh? Social media is a major thing, at least within context of exhcange of ideas.

They don't though. Social media has influence, but not political power. TV and newspapers had the same influence. Yet no one was calling for them to be completely unrestricted platforms.

Corporate censorship is not really a problem to me. As proven above, all social media in the world is not controlled by a small number of companies.

If you get to determine what can be shown to a significant amount of population then you have political power. Which is why the only way to maintain freedom of speech is by forcing big tech to give platform to everyone.

[Ludicus]

The right to free speech is important to me yes

So, what do you have to say about...The Uproar Over an Anti-Semitic Cartoon - The New York Times

...and the The NYTimes apologized,

We are deeply sorry for the publication of an anti-Semitic political cartoon last Thursday in the print edition of The New York Times that circulates outside of the United States, and we are committed to making sure nothing like this happens again

----
A few years ago, "we were all" Charlies Hebdo. In face of the recent events, Trump is enraged and wants more,

I wonder if the New York Times will apologize to me a second time, as they did after the 2016 Election. But this one will have to be a far bigger & better apology.

But the cartoon was originally published in a Portuguese newspaper, by a Portuguese cartoonist. Here,

Expresso | Esclarecimento sobre o cartoon de António (english version)

1. Expresso has always defended freedom of expression and opinion, principles we will never renounce. Throughout 46 years we have always been independent of political, economic or religious powers.
2. Antonio's cartoon is a space of opinion where, in this case, the author reflects his vision of the US foreign policy. We understand that it does not include or propagate any anti-Semitic message.
3. We recall that António is a collaborator of Expresso being an internationally awarded cartoonist with a vast work published.
4. Expresso will never allow the publication of any anti-religious message, whatever the religion.
5. To members of the Jewish community and those who may have felt offended, and in the face of the generated controversy, Expresso clarifies that it was never intended to portray Israel or the Jewish religion and its believers in a less dignified manner.

From the same cartoonist-The Catholic Pope and his nose, religion or politics?
Expresso | O Papa ou o preservativo?

Aexodus, freedom of expression, what are the limits?