Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 202

Thread: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

  1. #41

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    This is when you get this lovely paradox that both the left and the right can not seem to deal with.

    Censorship is bad so freedom is good so we give everyone freedom from state control. Free from state control indivduals then use the power they have over their own organisations and groups. Therefore we have youtube and other orgaisations controling what goes on with thier platforms.

    Now what? Give the state the power to dictate what those organisations can and can't ban? Then the state is the one with the power and the one that excerts it's own control.
    It was already addressed in corresponding thread - some social media platforms can and should be viewed as public forums. Also in many countries it is illegal for corporations to ignore interests of shareholders, youtube and facebook's ideological crusade could fall under such category.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Let's drop the pretenses. Getting a tweet or a facebook blocked is hardly a limitation to freedom of speech - Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are companies, they sell products. Tell me one company you can go in and start yapping against potential clients and not get your ass kicked out. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are not platforms for political discourse, or even political proselytization. They are platforms to collect our interests and preferences and sell them to the advertisers, so they can sell us their products better. The reason the alt-right protests about the Big Tech companies censoring posts is because they are cut off from their base and can't attract more people through Facebook as they did up to now. Orwellian indeed. I would like to remind you that people got blacklisted, lost their jobs, were habitually imprisoned etc during McCarthyism for exercising their freedom of speech - so comparing that to Facebook and Twitter 'censorship' is... yeah. No.
    UK, Russia, Iran, Germany or Turkey - have nothing in common that you can viably compare them to. That's a very, very, very dubious oversimplification.
    Censorship is censorship, be it government of UK or China, or be it corporate CEOs.
    It essentially applies to attempts to curb society's capacity to exchange ideas, regardless whether it is state or corporation. Also I listed those countries because they all violate freedom of speech of their citizens.
    No. Ideas are not suppressed - otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. The alt-right sprung because of online communities were their dogma was first spread. And if they are proponents of violence, genocide denials, racial superiority and all the other nice stuff, I don't see why people shouldn't call them out on this. And that's what has been happening. You can see this from the protestations of some from the alt-right that they're being called 'Neo-nazis'.

    Of course, these people from the alt-right want to say that calling their ideology for what it is constitutes some sense of suppression. What that means in actual fact is that because most people don't want anything to do with Nazism and balk at the very thought of totalitarianism, when their ideology is stripped off its literary ornaments and held up for what it advocates it "suppresses" their efficiency at recruiting new advocates.

    There's this idea going on that people on the left are trying to suppress the alt-right but that's not factually correct. The companies want to censor posts that generate controversy that could lose them money. The people themselves welcome this alt-right 'outing' into the mainstream because then we all know who supports what. And most of the ideas of the alt-right can't stand to actual debate, especially since most ideas range from xenophobic to anti-elite conspiracies.

    Of course, there's also an argument to be made on whether some republicans, concerned over the increasing popularity of the left, have reverted to the time-proven paradigm that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', and this whole discussion about freedom of speech is a vehicle to enable the alt-right, the fascists and the neo-nazis to keep recruiting more and more disillusioned young men.
    Alt-right "sprung" as reaction to racist identity politics that came from the left. Not to mention that it is an umbrella term for variety of ideologies from extreme libertarianism to some form of ethno-nationalism. Overall, alt-right is just cynical young people who are just too intelligent to drink the cool aid of mainstream liberal propaganda and seek alternatives to what they see is failing ideology of liberalism. Conflating them with more radical politics isn't a good faith type of debating, and we can make a rational conclusion that the real reason why liberal left prefers threats of physical violence or speech suppression is because they can't defend their own ideas in debate with their opponents. So we just come down to the fact that liberal left can't stand and is afraid of competition in free market of ideas - hence why they seek to destroy that.

  2. #42
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,344

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    It was already addressed in corresponding thread - some social media platforms can and should be viewed as public forums. Also in many countries it is illegal for corporations to ignore interests of shareholders, youtube and facebook's ideological crusade could fall under such category.

    Censorship is censorship, be it government of UK or China, or be it corporate CEOs.
    It essentially applies to attempts to curb society's capacity to exchange ideas, regardless whether it is state or corporation. Also I listed those countries because they all violate freedom of speech of their citizens.

    1. That social media platforms are de facto used as social forums by some of their users doesn't legally make them as such. That's an argument of what should, not what is.
    2. Shareholders (people who have shares, ie stocks) and stakeholders (people who have a civic, moral or other stake) are different things.
    3. I'd say that the very real censorship in China and some other countries has no comparison to the UK. But you're free to prove me wrong on this one.
    4. A state's capacity to suppress the exchange of ideas dwarfs that of a corporation. If you can't proselytize through Facebook, you have other means to do so - try to speak up against the Chinese government while staying there and see where that gets you.
    5. Germany and the UK have no, no comparison to theocratic Iran. Just sayin'. Also look point no 4.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Alt-right "sprung" as reaction to racist identity politics that came from the left. Not to mention that it is an umbrella term for variety of ideologies from extreme libertarianism to some form of ethno-nationalism. Overall, alt-right is just cynical young people who are just too intelligent to drink the cool aid of mainstream liberal propaganda and seek alternatives to what they see is failing ideology of liberalism. Conflating them with more radical politics isn't a good faith type of debating, and we can make a rational conclusion that the real reason why liberal left prefers threats of physical violence or speech suppression is because they can't defend their own ideas in debate with their opponents. So we just come down to the fact that liberal left can't stand and is afraid of competition in free market of ideas - hence why they seek to destroy that.
    I've taken the liberty to highlight the problematic parts. So, what do we think about this?

    1. Racist identity politics coming from the left is just as conflating argument as the premise of this thread; employing a self-professed socialist as a defender of conservative ideals. As I have already pointed out on an other thread, our entire political philosophy is based on identity politics - in fact, it's the only way we are able to do politics because we simply do not care enough about arguments that doesn't somehow involve our sense of identity. Examples:

    a) During the Athenian democracy, the major political configurations were the Democrats and the Oligarchs. The first were advocates for the rule of the Demos, hence the name, where every citizen would be able to vote and be appointed to public offices; the latter were those Athenians who claimed that politics should be left to the 'aristoi' - those who had the birthright (noblemen) to rule. Guess who supported the latter group at the crushing majority? That's right, the Athenian aristocracy who, if successful, would be the only ones to benefit from the system. Are these to groups not based on identity?

    b) During the early Roman republic the tensions between the Populares and the Optimates begun with the first secession of the Plebeians from the city to found the Aventine city, demanding equal footing with the Patricians. Before that 'strike', plebeians couldn't be elected on public or religious offices, nor could they marry with patricians. They were de facto and de jure second class citizens with no right to determine their own fate. The fact that we know important Romans who weren't patricians is precisely because at some point the identity of what it meant to be plebeian was redefined. During the Civili Wars, Livius Drusus, a Roman, was proposing to enfranchise all Italians as Roman citizens; identity politics or not?

    c) During the middle ages, identity politics were mostly based on religion. The Byzantines and the iconomachoi and iconoclasts, the schism of west and east Christian churches, the crusades, the protestant and catholics one hundred wars etc were all based on the identity of the opposing sides.

    d) The rights of women to vote came out of identity politics, when men voted for women to have the vote among sexual identity arguments and the ability of either sex to exercise logic. Still not identity politics, I assume?

    e) The totalitarian regimes during the mid-20th century were about identity politics, racial and class identity. No?

    f) Civil rights in America were also based on identity politics, with African Americans demanding equal rights to everyone else, all cuminating from a century's struggle of identity politics that first ended slavery until the final civil rights act. Still no?

    I can go into much further detail but that's not the point. The point is that identity politics were, are and will be how we understand politics. The alt-right has attempted to say they have a monopoly on 'logic' and 'reason', depicting their opposition as 'crazed', 'irrational' and 'snowflakes', while at the same time regressing in part or in whole towards reactionary positions. At some point the alt-right needs to understand that 'Make my country great again' slogans, ie slogans that search greatness in regressing to the past isn't a promise for a great future for many of their fellow citizens - it's a threat.

    2) The alt-right hasn't a coherent distinction between these varying groups. What's closer to the truth is that libertarian and ethnonationalist positions intermingle and it's up to the individual to say 'yeah, but I agree with x but not y'. The problem with this is that their advocates agree with both x and y, using libertarian ideas to slip past ethnonationalist and socialnationalist ideals.

    3) The too intelligent cynical young men who refuse to drink the cool aid of liberal propaganda bit - that's self-flattering propaganda, mate. Are you saying everyone else is less intelligent than the alt-right cynical young men, or that they possess extra human intelligence? Either way, propaganda and self-flattery.

    4) The threats to physical violence bit hints that you're talking about the antifa again. At which point I am going to ask: When you have people advocating suspending democracy, racial supremacy and genocide, at what point do you think that people should start to react?

    5) We are debating right now. The only threat to destroying your ideas comes from my arguments.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

  3. #43

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    1. That social media platforms are de facto used as social forums by some of their users doesn't legally make them as such. That's an argument of what should, not what is.
    2. Shareholders (people who have shares, ie stocks) and stakeholders (people who have a civic, moral or other stake) are different things.
    3. I'd say that the very real censorship in China and some other countries has no comparison to the UK. But you're free to prove me wrong on this one.
    4. A state's capacity to suppress the exchange of ideas dwarfs that of a corporation. If you can't proselytize through Facebook, you have other means to do so - try to speak up against the Chinese government while staying there and see where that gets you.
    5. Germany and the UK have no, no comparison to theocratic Iran. Just sayin'. Also look point no 4.
    1. No, that is de jure vs. de facto distinction. The problem is that most countries are too slow to respond to this rapidly evolving situations and have not yet enacted any legal means to correct this.

    You're heavily downplaying effect of social media and generally internet communication. Trust in traditional media has been dropping steadily, people are more disposed to trust whatever their friends share on Facebook than any newspaper or TV station. 2016 US Presidential elections proved the impact of social media. The largest civil demonstration in my country since the fall of communism was organized through social media. And so on...at the moment, social media are undeniably world's largest and most influential platform for public discourse, and it's owned by only few corporations that have near monopoly.

    In western, democratic country with respect toward human rights, government has to go through the legal hoops and secure the social media owners' support in identifying and censoring content. At present, in democratic countries the owners have the upper hand, and they can selectively choose what kind of censorship will be enforced.

    Overall, the owners of social media undeniably have means to enforce selective censorship and push their own ideological agenda without harming their commercial means, thanks to their monopolies. The question is, do they have will to do so? Unfortunately, the cases that you dismiss as unimportant prove that they have.

    4. Bolded part. I challenge you to back up that claim. Show a way how can an individual or non-governmental organization reach and affect people more widely and cost-effectively than going through one of few major social media.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    I've taken the liberty to highlight the problematic parts. So, what do we think about this?

    1. Racist identity politics coming from the left is just as conflating argument as the premise of this thread; employing a self-professed socialist as a defender of conservative ideals. As I have already pointed out on an other thread, our entire political philosophy is based on identity politics - in fact, it's the only way we are able to do politics because we simply do not care enough about arguments that doesn't somehow involve our sense of identity. Examples:

    a) During the Athenian democracy, the major political configurations were the Democrats and the Oligarchs. The first were advocates for the rule of the Demos, hence the name, where every citizen would be able to vote and be appointed to public offices; the latter were those Athenians who claimed that politics should be left to the 'aristoi' - those who had the birthright (noblemen) to rule. Guess who supported the latter group at the crushing majority? That's right, the Athenian aristocracy who, if successful, would be the only ones to benefit from the system. Are these to groups not based on identity?

    b) During the early Roman republic the tensions between the Populares and the Optimates begun with the first secession of the Plebeians from the city to found the Aventine city, demanding equal footing with the Patricians. Before that 'strike', plebeians couldn't be elected on public or religious offices, nor could they marry with patricians. They were de facto and de jure second class citizens with no right to determine their own fate. The fact that we know important Romans who weren't patricians is precisely because at some point the identity of what it meant to be plebeian was redefined. During the Civili Wars, Livius Drusus, a Roman, was proposing to enfranchise all Italians as Roman citizens; identity politics or not?

    c) During the middle ages, identity politics were mostly based on religion. The Byzantines and the iconomachoi and iconoclasts, the schism of west and east Christian churches, the crusades, the protestant and catholics one hundred wars etc were all based on the identity of the opposing sides.

    d) The rights of women to vote came out of identity politics, when men voted for women to have the vote among sexual identity arguments and the ability of either sex to exercise logic. Still not identity politics, I assume?

    e) The totalitarian regimes during the mid-20th century were about identity politics, racial and class identity. No?

    f) Civil rights in America were also based on identity politics, with African Americans demanding equal rights to everyone else, all cuminating from a century's struggle of identity politics that first ended slavery until the final civil rights act. Still no?

    I can go into much further detail but that's not the point. The point is that identity politics were, are and will be how we understand politics. The alt-right has attempted to say they have a monopoly on 'logic' and 'reason', depicting their opposition as 'crazed', 'irrational' and 'snowflakes', while at the same time regressing in part or in whole towards reactionary positions. At some point the alt-right needs to understand that 'Make my country great again' slogans, ie slogans that search greatness in regressing to the past isn't a promise for a great future for many of their fellow citizens - it's a threat.

    2) The alt-right hasn't a coherent distinction between these varying groups. What's closer to the truth is that libertarian and ethnonationalist positions intermingle and it's up to the individual to say 'yeah, but I agree with x but not y'. The problem with this is that their advocates agree with both x and y, using libertarian ideas to slip past ethnonationalist and socialnationalist ideals.

    3) The too intelligent cynical young men who refuse to drink the cool aid of liberal propaganda bit - that's self-flattering propaganda, mate. Are you saying everyone else is less intelligent than the alt-right cynical young men, or that they possess extra human intelligence? Either way, propaganda and self-flattery.

    4) The threats to physical violence bit hints that you're talking about the antifa again. At which point I am going to ask: When you have people advocating suspending democracy, racial supremacy and genocide, at what point do you think that people should start to react?

    5) We are debating right now. The only threat to destroying your ideas comes from my arguments.
    Proper political discourse in modern times is hampered by the use of generalization and attacking identity, rather than position. It's more noticeable in US where two-party political system led to situation where if you show support for any idea associated with democrats, those who prefer republicans will call you libtard, cuck and whatever else, and if you favor republicans, you get called nazi and so on, without your actual position in other matters being asked. And everywhere it's either republican or democrat. A third option or compromise is not an option in US. And social media reinforce this, since they are, by their nature, incredibly powerful tools to propagate confirmation bias.

    4. The principle of free market of ideas is that ANY idea can be discussed in good faith without reprecussions. If an idea is harmful, you can prove it in debate. By reacting with threats or actual physical violence, you deny the free market of ideas and turn into totalitarian, "might makes right" society.

    So yeah, the violence we've seen coming from antifa and BLM mean they, and those who excuse or support their behaviour, are not interested in free market of ideas.

  4. #44
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,344

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    1. No, that is de jure vs. de facto distinction. The problem is that most countries are too slow to respond to this rapidly evolving situations and have not yet enacted any legal means to correct this.
    No, it's not. Companies are beholden to their shareholders (to make profit for them) and can, should they decide to, exhibit some actions of good faith towards the general public dubbed 'social responsibility acts'. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other companies weren't created for us - they were created for profit. This is fact, no legal status distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    You're heavily downplaying effect of social media and generally internet communication. Trust in traditional media has been dropping steadily, people are more disposed to trust whatever their friends share on Facebook than any newspaper or TV station. 2016 US Presidential elections proved the impact of social media. The largest civil demonstration in my country since the fall of communism was organized through social media. And so on...at the moment, social media are undeniably world's largest and most influential platform for public discourse, and it's owned by only few corporations that have near monopoly.
    If you're critiquing the major capitalist companies, you won't find an opponent in me. But if you're telling me they're evil just because they will censor neo-nazis due to the fact that it will offend other users, their clients, then maybe you should change your mind. They're bad for a great lot of things, but this is not one of them. Also, you do understand that their monopoly is based entirely on the fact that people use them? We didn't always have facebook, youtube or twitter and people can stop using these platforms just as easily.

    So, the problem here isn't the companies. The problem is access to voters. The alt-right has gained traction from sites spreading their dogma, and people who are already inclined to go that way will find their way there. But the alt-right wants now to become mainstream, so it needs to use these platforms to convince the rest of the population of the righteousness of their crusade. The problem of course is that their ideas lack any sort of legitimization, so there is where the argument about free speech comes into play.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    In western, democratic country with respect toward human rights, government has to go through the legal hoops and secure the social media owners' support in identifying and censoring content. At present, in democratic countries the owners have the upper hand, and they can selectively choose what kind of censorship will be enforced.
    This isn't true. Facebook and Youtube and Twitter didn't decide by themselves to censor the content. The premise of their business is that everyone has to be on the platform for as much as possible for the company to make maximum profit. In the case of EU, the conjoined governments decided to sue the companies for promoting fake news on their platforms precisely because they have the upper hand; and guess what happened? The 'EU is killing the memes' discussion derailment, promoted by who else - the social media companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    Overall, the owners of social media undeniably have means to enforce selective censorship and push their own ideological agenda without harming their commercial means, thanks to their monopolies. The question is, do they have will to do so? Unfortunately, the cases that you dismiss as unimportant prove that they have.
    No. Media platforms spring up every day to cover the needs of the populace - case in point, Thinkspot.com. If people want to talk politics, they will talk politics. This Orwellian hysteria is just that - hysteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    4. Bolded part. I challenge you to back up that claim. Show a way how can an individual or non-governmental organization reach and affect people more widely and cost-effectively than going through one of few major social media.
    This is the easiest thing I've been challenged to prove. Hmmm, if only there was some period of history, before the invention of facebook, I could draw inspiration from. Some period from history were people gathered in pubs and beer-halls and other places and exchanged ideas, and mobilized. Maybe a period of time where thousands, and milions of people took to the streets to protest upon which actions a political movement was born because they liked to listen to certain people in cafes. Hmmm.

    Jokes aside, aren't we here right now debating politics? We are. So what are you raving about? Unless, the point isn't to debate but proselytize others to your cause - something by the way, that a lot of people are trying to do in TWC already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    Proper political discourse in modern times is hampered by the use of generalization and attacking identity, rather than position. It's more noticeable in US where two-party political system led to situation where if you show support for any idea associated with democrats, those who prefer republicans will call you libtard, cuck and whatever else, and if you favor republicans, you get called nazi and so on, without your actual position in other matters being asked. And everywhere it's either republican or democrat. A third option or compromise is not an option in US. And social media reinforce this, since they are, by their nature, incredibly powerful tools to propagate confirmation bias.
    D'you remember the time when people not supporting the war of Iraq in America were denounced as 'unpatriotic' and 'Un-Americans'? Because I do. It was always an attack on identity, and that's because people don't care enough about politics if it's not about them personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    4. The principle of free market of ideas is that ANY idea can be discussed in good faith without reprecussions. If an idea is harmful, you can prove it in debate. By reacting with threats or actual physical violence, you deny the free market of ideas and turn into totalitarian, "might makes right" society.
    And here comes our earlier discussion back into the subject. Since you yourself admitted that in order to discuss some ideas there needs to be an equal playing field of knowledge and information, and since you yourself admitted that more critical education is needed and that you'd impose some limits for minors, elders and the mentally challenged - the entire principle of free marketplace of ideas comes into question.

    So, if we cannot achieve equity in information for everyone to be able to discover the truth by debating it (1), we can't ensure that information is going to be spread truthfully and without bias (2) but we as the western civilization agree that generally abusing people for their religion, skin color, ideas, politics etc is wrong (3) then it falls to reason some regulation is required. Do you deny that, even if the regulation limits the left and the right as it does right now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    So yeah, the violence we've seen coming from antifa and BLM mean they, and those who excuse or support their behaviour, are not interested in free market of ideas.
    Okay, this requires a new thread by itself but my ideas on this subject can be best portrayed here, here and here.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

  5. #45

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    No, it's not. Companies are beholden to their shareholders (to make profit for them) and can, should they decide to, exhibit some actions of good faith towards the general public dubbed 'social responsibility acts'. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other companies weren't created for us - they were created for profit. This is fact, no legal status distinction.
    You seem to think that being a for-profit organization somehow prevents company from political activism, look at the drivel that CNN and Fox produce every day and think again.

    Besides, political activism can be a form of lobbying....

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    If you're critiquing the major capitalist companies, you won't find an opponent in me. But if you're telling me they're evil just because they will censor neo-nazis due to the fact that it will offend other users, their clients, then maybe you should change your mind. They're bad for a great lot of things, but this is not one of them. Also, you do understand that their monopoly is based entirely on the fact that people use them? We didn't always have facebook, youtube or twitter and people can stop using these platforms just as easily.
    Now you're just being hilarious. Social media have embedded themselves in society same way telephone did. It won't be easy to stop. Oh and if you mean specific companies...FB has virtual monopoly, and it won't be easy to dislodge. Even Google failed to provide competition. And on the other hand, Google has virtual monopoly on internet search and ads. Monopolies, when established, are terribly difficult to dislodge.

    You seem to have no notion about how the economy of the internet works. Us, the common people, we're not customers. We're the product. Customers are those who buy ad space or provide other benefits to the company (see the note about lobbying). And just like any other company, it's for their benefit to shape the product for their customers. Which is so easy to do through social media...

    There's a legal term that I can't recall right now that means a case when an activity or ownership of something carries with it a special obligation toward other people. For example, if you own property with a sidewalk, it's your obligation to keep the sidewalk accessible and usable (shovel the snow, sprinkle the salt over ice...) and so on. The way I see it, when major social media became main platform for political discourse, it created similar obligation toward the free speech. Which means that such censorship should be unacceptable. Now, I've mentioned the restrictions of free speech to prevent exploitation of those who can't make informed decisions, but there are solutions to that other than such selective censorship. It's a pity that legislative in most countries so far failed to enact proper laws for that, but hopefully that will eventually change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    So, the problem here isn't the companies. The problem is access to voters. The alt-right has gained traction from sites spreading their dogma, and people who are already inclined to go that way will find their way there. But the alt-right wants now to become mainstream, so it needs to use these platforms to convince the rest of the population of the righteousness of their crusade. The problem of course is that their ideas lack any sort of legitimization, so there is where the argument about free speech comes into play.
    If they truly lack legitimization, then it sshould be easy to argue against them. That's what free speech and free market of ideas are about.

    Oh, and main reason why alt-right got traction is because the far left ideas became too mainstream, and due to polarization of US political scene, those who disagreed were pushed toward the other side. In a way, Newton's third law in politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    This isn't true. Facebook and Youtube and Twitter didn't decide by themselves to censor the content. The premise of their business is that everyone has to be on the platform for as much as possible for the company to make maximum profit. In the case of EU, the conjoined governments decided to sue the companies for promoting fake news on their platforms precisely because they have the upper hand; and guess what happened? The 'EU is killing the memes' discussion derailment, promoted by who else - the social media companies.
    Let me just quote you...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    4. A state's capacity to suppress the exchange of ideas dwarfs that of a corporation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    No. Media platforms spring up every day to cover the needs of the populace - case in point, Thinkspot.com. If people want to talk politics, they will talk politics. This Orwellian hysteria is just that - hysteria.
    Most users like the "all in one place" arrangement, which is why FB is so dominant. Various specialized sites attract tiny fraction of traffic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    This is the easiest thing I've been challenged to prove. Hmmm, if only there was some period of history, before the invention of facebook, I could draw inspiration from. Some period from history were people gathered in pubs and beer-halls and other places and exchanged ideas, and mobilized. Maybe a period of time where thousands, and milions of people took to the streets to protest upon which actions a political movement was born because they liked to listen to certain people in cafes. Hmmm.
    And yet, you proved nothing. Times change. What was easy approach hundred years ago won't even work today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Jokes aside, aren't we here right now debating politics? We are. So what are you raving about? Unless, the point isn't to debate but proselytize others to your cause - something by the way, that a lot of people are trying to do in TWC already.
    As you might have noticed, I favor more confrontational, no holds barred style of discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    D'you remember the time when people not supporting the war of Iraq in America were denounced as 'unpatriotic' and 'Un-Americans'? Because I do. It was always an attack on identity, and that's because people don't care enough about politics if it's not about them personally.
    I'm more familiar with use of such rhetoric in Eastern bloc, which is my point. That's not something that belongs in a free society. Just because it has been used does not mean it's right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    And here comes our earlier discussion back into the subject. Since you yourself admitted that in order to discuss some ideas there needs to be an equal playing field of knowledge and information, and since you yourself admitted that more critical education is needed and that you'd impose some limits for minors, elders and the mentally challenged - the entire principle of free marketplace of ideas comes into question.

    So, if we cannot achieve equity in information for everyone to be able to discover the truth by debating it (1), we can't ensure that information is going to be spread truthfully and without bias (2) but we as the western civilization agree that generally abusing people for their religion, skin color, ideas, politics etc is wrong (3) then it falls to reason some regulation is required. Do you deny that, even if the regulation limits the left and the right as it does right now?
    Free market of ideas and free speech are not ideas driven simply by economics, but by humanistic ideals that had significant influence in shaping the modern "western" world. The only reason why I'm favoring some regulation is to protect the compromised groups from exploitation. You're misrepresenting my argument, I'm for as low regulation as possible without exposing people with compromised reasoning to exploitation, while you try to drive it on slippery slope toward what you feel is status quo...

    ...which it isn't, due to selective censorship which I mentioned earlier. For example, try to do a brief search for facebook censorship. You'll see that vast majority of cases concern right-leaning ideas. If you are willing, there's a huge load of material to go through.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Okay, this requires a new thread by itself but my ideas on this subject can be best portrayed here, here and here.
    To be honest, I have no patience for videos that take ten minutes to sum up something that can be read within 10 seconds. If you've got a point to make, please stick to the written word.

  6. #46

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    1. That social media platforms are de facto used as social forums by some of their users doesn't legally make them as such. That's an argument of what should, not what is.
    2. Shareholders (people who have shares, ie stocks) and stakeholders (people who have a civic, moral or other stake) are different things.
    3. I'd say that the very real censorship in China and some other countries has no comparison to the UK. But you're free to prove me wrong on this one.
    4. A state's capacity to suppress the exchange of ideas dwarfs that of a corporation. If you can't proselytize through Facebook, you have other means to do so - try to speak up against the Chinese government while staying there and see where that gets you.
    5. Germany and the UK have no, no comparison to theocratic Iran. Just sayin'. Also look point no 4.
    1. As it was pointed out in corresponding thread, technology moves on, and so do laws. I don't see a significant problem in defining Facebook or youtube as public forums, given that their owners may use their power to essentially impede society's capacity to exchange ideas. Corporate entities are already bound by a variety of rules and regulations and adding one won't create a socialist apocalypse, but would serve society in the long term.
    2. I'm talking about corporations jeopardizing interests of shareholders by arbitrarily removing content that could generate income for them. It is illegal in plenty of countries including US.
    3. In UK one may get arrested over a social media post. The extent of state censorship in places like UK and Russia may not eb as bad as in China, but the direction is still alarming.
    4. Censorship is censorship be it done by state or by corporation.
    5. See point 3. The difference between countries which violate freedom of speech can only be technical.
    I've taken the liberty to highlight the problematic parts. So, what do we think about this?

    1. Racist identity politics coming from the left is just as conflating argument as the premise of this thread; employing a self-professed socialist as a defender of conservative ideals. As I have already pointed out on an other thread, our entire political philosophy is based on identity politics - in fact, it's the only way we are able to do politics because we simply do not care enough about arguments that doesn't somehow involve our sense of identity. Examples:
    ....
    I can go into much further detail but that's not the point. The point is that identity politics were, are and will be how we understand politics. The alt-right has attempted to say they have a monopoly on 'logic' and 'reason', depicting their opposition as 'crazed', 'irrational' and 'snowflakes', while at the same time regressing in part or in whole towards reactionary positions. At some point the alt-right needs to understand that 'Make my country great again' slogans, ie slogans that search greatness in regressing to the past isn't a promise for a great future for many of their fellow citizens - it's a threat.
    Thing is, it is exactly the opposite. Leftists identity politics today do not serve any positive purpose, the mainly are used to justify predatory practices of corporate elites that such regressive politicians represent. "Make my country great again" slogan isn't a threat, but rather an idea that such predatory practices are bad and so is regressive ideology of modern left.
    2) The alt-right hasn't a coherent distinction between these varying groups. What's closer to the truth is that libertarian and ethnonationalist positions intermingle and it's up to the individual to say 'yeah, but I agree with x but not y'. The problem with this is that their advocates agree with both x and y, using libertarian ideas to slip past ethnonationalist and socialnationalist ideals.
    And you are free to debate them in good faith if you disagree with them.
    3) The too intelligent cynical young men who refuse to drink the cool aid of liberal propaganda bit - that's self-flattering propaganda, mate. Are you saying everyone else is less intelligent than the alt-right cynical young men, or that they possess extra human intelligence? Either way, propaganda and self-flattery.
    I'm just pointing out the fact that this group in particular does possess critical thinking ability to see through propaganda from establishment media. I'm sure there are intelligent people on the left, but they either lack critical thinking skills to realize that they are dancing to the tune of predatory neoliberal elites or they simply use their ideology to gain power and wealth.
    4) The threats to physical violence bit hints that you're talking about the antifa again. At which point I am going to ask: When you have people advocating suspending democracy, racial supremacy and genocide, at what point do you think that people should start to react?
    They are free to react by debating in good faith. As I said, the issue is that left is incapable to present argument in favor of its ideas, hence attempts to slander opposition as "evil" and then attempt to justify censorship and physical violence.
    5) We are debating right now. The only threat to destroying your ideas comes from my arguments.
    Don't really see what that has to do with the statement you quoted.

  7. #47
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,344

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    You seem to think that being a for-profit organization somehow prevents company from political activism, look at the drivel that CNN and Fox produce every day and think again.

    Besides, political activism can be a form of lobbying....



    Now you're just being hilarious. Social media have embedded themselves in society same way telephone did. It won't be easy to stop. Oh and if you mean specific companies...FB has virtual monopoly, and it won't be easy to dislodge. Even Google failed to provide competition. And on the other hand, Google has virtual monopoly on internet search and ads. Monopolies, when established, are terribly difficult to dislodge.

    You seem to have no notion about how the economy of the internet works. Us, the common people, we're not customers. We're the product. Customers are those who buy ad space or provide other benefits to the company (see the note about lobbying). And just like any other company, it's for their benefit to shape the product for their customers. Which is so easy to do through social media...




    If they truly lack legitimization, then it sshould be easy to argue against them. That's what free speech and free market of ideas are about.

    Oh, and main reason why alt-right got traction is because the far left ideas became too mainstream, and due to polarization of US political scene, those who disagreed were pushed toward the other side. In a way, Newton's third law in politics.



    Let me just quote you...






    Most users like the "all in one place" arrangement, which is why FB is so dominant. Various specialized sites attract tiny fraction of traffic.



    And yet, you proved nothing. Times change. What was easy approach hundred years ago won't even work today.



    As you might have noticed, I favor more confrontational, no holds barred style of discussion.



    I'm more familiar with use of such rhetoric in Eastern bloc, which is my point. That's not something that belongs in a free society. Just because it has been used does not mean it's right.



    Free market of ideas and free speech are not ideas driven simply by economics, but by humanistic ideals that had significant influence in shaping the modern "western" world. The only reason why I'm favoring some regulation is to protect the compromised groups from exploitation. You're misrepresenting my argument, I'm for as low regulation as possible without exposing people with compromised reasoning to exploitation, while you try to drive it on slippery slope toward what you feel is status quo...

    ...which it isn't, due to selective censorship which I mentioned earlier. For example, try to do a brief search for facebook censorship. You'll see that vast majority of cases concern right-leaning ideas. If you are willing, there's a huge load of material to go through.



    To be honest, I have no patience for videos that take ten minutes to sum up something that can be read within 10 seconds. If you've got a point to make, please stick to the written word.

    I'll begin from the end of your arguments. The problem with the alt-right is that while their arguments take a few minutes to be made, the whole process of demolishing the idea can take several for every sentence. Disinformation works like that, see. So, open a thread and we can debate this part too.

    On the free market of ideas. While you say that I misrepresent your argument, I didn't do that. You accept regulation for categories of the population that are easy to misdirect. I repeated that. I highlight the segment again below. What I did was take this and then pose a simple question: if I were to prove to you that more people are in the 'compromised' category, the category you admit you would accept regulation... will you consent to it? I also linked to something on that part of the argument that mayhaps you didn't read carefully. Please read that. It's important for the argument.

    And here comes our earlier discussion back into the subject. Since you yourself admitted that in order to discuss some ideas there needs to be an equal playing field of knowledge and information, and since you yourself admitted that more critical education is needed and that you'd impose some limits for minors, elders and the mentally challenged - the entire principle of free marketplace of ideas comes into question.

    So, if we cannot achieve equity in information for everyone to be able to discover the truth by debating it (1), we can't ensure that information is going to be spread truthfully and without bias (2) but we as the western civilization agree that generally abusing people for their religion, skin color, ideas, politics etc is wrong (3) then it falls to reason some regulation is required. Do you deny that, even if the regulation limits the left and the right as it does right now?

    On the attacks of identity, I said it before and will say again - this has always been this case. Politics involve identity because politics is the art of compromising individual wants. Whether you read the Philippics of Demosthenes, or the Philippics of Cicero, or whatever document throughout history discussing politics - attacks on identity are present - they're also the dominant part. You can't really deny that fact. You read Cicero denouncing Catiline and the entire document is a diatribe of how perverse the man and his allies were. And mind you, Catiline was asking to cancel the debts and give land to the people, so.... We simply don't care enough about politics if it is not about our identity - it's the reason why people do not generally follow some random country's politics or even spend two seconds considering anyone else than their own people. If it's not us then we lack empathy about it and we just don't care.

    On using social platforms for political discourse. First of all, where I come from two categories of people use social media for politics. One, the party parrots [derogatory term for people on the payroll of political parties to spread the party's ideas and positions] and activists. So if your goal isn't to spread misinformation and hate speech on a mass level, you'd use the social platforms for what everyone else is using them - pretending you have a better job that can provide for a better life, say quirky stuff now and then, show that you live a healthy, attractive life & stalk your exes and high-school crushes and generally be a creep. I'm jk of course. But this obsession over Facebook and Twitter is suspicious on many levels.

    People did, do and will self-organize whenever the historical circumstance is asking for it. You just can't go around it. You can't even suppress it. This obsession over a platform, be that television, radio, or the internet can only be viewed from one angle: you want to recruit/proselytize more people and more voters. So, again, since you can argue politics over the internet what's your obsession specifically over Facebook, YouTube and Twitter if your goal isn't to convince people to join your cause? And specifically when you want to use these platforms to spread misguiding, false, over-exaggerated stories to work up an outrage.

    On the matter of EU fining the corporations, are you suggesting that misinformation on the social platforms wasn't a huge issue, especially in Europe, which actually caused this action by the EU? If yes, then read this study.

    Oh, and main reason why alt-right got traction is because the far left ideas became too mainstream, and due to polarization of US political scene, those who disagreed were pushed toward the other side. In a way, Newton's third law in politics.
    So, in effect, you agree with me here?

    Of course, there's also an argument to be made on whether some republicans, concerned over the increasing popularity of the left, have reverted to the time-proven paradigm that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', and this whole discussion about freedom of speech is a vehicle to enable the alt-right, the fascists and the neo-nazis to keep recruiting more and more disillusioned young men.
    If they truly lack legitimization, then it should be easy to argue against them. That's what free speech and free market of ideas are about.
    We're arguing about this right now.

    Because something isn't easy doesn't mean it can't be done. Get off the internet, no one is stopping you. But you're arguing about misusing a platform for political gains, and that's why you say that. Also,

    You seem to have no notion about how the economy of the internet works. Us, the common people, we're not customers. We're the product. Customers are those who buy ad space or provide other benefits to the company (see the note about lobbying). And just like any other company, it's for their benefit to shape the product for their customers. Which is so easy to do through social media...
    Do you read what I write carefully? Because I've already said that. Or are you twisting my argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Let's drop the pretenses. Getting a tweet or a facebook blocked is hardly a limitation to freedom of speech - Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are companies, they sell products. Tell me one company you can go in and start yapping against potential clients and not get your ass kicked out. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are not platforms for political discourse, or even political proselytization. They are platforms to collect our interests and preferences and sell them to the advertisers, so they can sell us their products better. The reason the alt-right protests about the Big Tech companies censoring posts is because they are cut off from their base and can't attract more people through Facebook as they did up to now. Orwellian indeed. I would like to remind you that people got blacklisted, lost their jobs, were habitually imprisoned etc during McCarthyism for exercising their freedom of speech - so comparing that to Facebook and Twitter 'censorship' is... yeah. No.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post

    There's a legal term that I can't recall right now that means a case when an activity or ownership of something carries with it a special obligation toward other people. For example, if you own property with a sidewalk, it's your obligation to keep the sidewalk accessible and usable (shovel the snow, sprinkle the salt over ice...) and so on. The way I see it, when major social media became main platform for political discourse, it created similar obligation toward the free speech. Which means that such censorship should be unacceptable. Now, I've mentioned the restrictions of free speech to prevent exploitation of those who can't make informed decisions, but there are solutions to that other than such selective censorship. It's a pity that legislative in most countries so far failed to enact proper laws for that, but hopefully that will eventually change.
    Again, you're arguing what should, not what is. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are under no such legal obligation so they are not doing that. If they were under such obligation, they wouldn't take anything down.

    And I think that you widen the definition of what freedom of speech means; it means that the government can't punish you via jailing etc for what you say in public. It doesn't mean that you can say anything you like, anywhere you like with no repercussions, namely people booing you and companies refusing to serve you. This provision protects you from the state, but even here there are provisions on what you can and can't do. This widening of the definition is completely erroneous and isn't in effect anywhere in the world. You can fact check me here. Here's the US take on censorship for comparison.

    To wrap this up, the free marketplace of ideas has always been used as a defense for the freedom of speech, as is laid out in the US First Amendment. However, this has been used to defend people from public authorities, not other people, and not always successfully as the McCarthyism victims can attest. So again, you're widening the definition erroneously to include individuals and private-owned corporations. It's legal definition, according to Cambridge Legal Theory [1]: The argument is that truth will emerge in an open marketplace of ideas. Given an economic twist, it is claimed that the competitive market for speech will maximize truth just as competitive markets in other goods are best in economic terms. If government does not interfere with this market, knowledge will be maximized.

    And the question is: why do you need to widen the definitions?
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

  8. #48
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,344

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Sorry for double posting, as you can see Hammer's reply came a few minutes after I was done ironing mine - and didn't see his points. With that said,

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    1. As it was pointed out in corresponding thread, technology moves on, and so do laws. I don't see a significant problem in defining Facebook or youtube as public forums, given that their owners may use their power to essentially impede society's capacity to exchange ideas. Corporate entities are already bound by a variety of rules and regulations and adding one won't create a socialist apocalypse, but would serve society in the long term.
    2. I'm talking about corporations jeopardizing interests of shareholders by arbitrarily removing content that could generate income for them. It is illegal in plenty of countries including US.
    3. In UK one may get arrested over a social media post. The extent of state censorship in places like UK and Russia may not eb as bad as in China, but the direction is still alarming.
    4. Censorship is censorship be it done by state or by corporation.
    5. See point 3. The difference between countries which violate freedom of speech can only be technical.
    a. You're arguing about what should be the case, not what the case currently is. Facebook and YouTube aren't defined as public forums, so what you think should apply to them doesn't legally apply. This is an important issue if controversy is generated about the Orwellian social media because of misidentifying what these platforms are required by law to do. Which brings me to actual legislation:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    And I think that you widen the definition of what freedom of speech means; it means that the government can't punish you via jailing etc for what you say in public. It doesn't mean that you can say anything you like, anywhere you like with no repercussions, namely people booing you and companies refusing to serve you. This provision protects you from the state, but even here there are provisions on what you can and can't do. This widening of the definition is completely erroneous and isn't in effect anywhere in the world. You can fact check me here. Here's the US take on censorship for comparison.


    To wrap this up, the free marketplace of ideas has always been used as a defense for the freedom of speech, as is laid out in the US First Amendment. However, this has been used to defend people from public authorities, not other people, and not always successfully as the McCarthyism victims can attest. So again, you're widening the definition erroneously to include individuals and private-owned corporations. It's legal definition, according to Cambridge Legal Theory [1]: The argument is that truth will emerge in an open marketplace of ideas. Given an economic twist, it is claimed that the competitive market for speech will maximize truth just as competitive markets in other goods are best in economic terms. If government does not interfere with this market, knowledge will be maximized.
    b. That's -- false. A company has a board of directors, voted upon by the shareholders and trusted with the how, why, by what means, for what profits etc the company will work. There's cases where the decision of the board of directors to move the company or alter the company's mode of production was taken and proven in court to be in the economic detriment of the shareholders, but there's no law -nor should there ever be- that says content generating profit should be immune to laws of slander, incitement to future or imminent violence, civic agitation etc

    c. I don't think you really know British law if you say that, and I don't think you even understand US law on freedom of speech. I include the UK and US censorship legislations for your benefit.

    d. Censorship is censorship - nowhere in the world is there a place where you can say whatever you want, whenever you want it, without repercussions as internal or external censorship. You can fact check me here. So, you're bringing a philosophic argument and want to present it as an actual legal reason for saying that you're being restricted by corporations, the left, or the government. And that's factually wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Thing is, it is exactly the opposite. Leftists identity politics today do not serve any positive purpose, the mainly are used to justify predatory practices of corporate elites that such regressive politicians represent. "Make my country great again" slogan isn't a threat, but rather an idea that such predatory practices are bad and so is regressive ideology of modern left.
    I highlighted the problematic parts. Firstly, regressive means returning to a former or less developed state; the alt-right is doing that with their rhetoric of white homelands and ethno-states, which characterized movement's of the mid-2oth century. Even the slogan 'Make my country great again' means that it must have been so in the past - therefore, regression to a previous state considered to be greater. And what's that time in history exactly? Because it's left purposefully vague. Unless they hint to what the cry is going to be on the next elections. Har Har.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    And you are free to debate them in good faith if you disagree with them.
    I am doing this right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    I'm just pointing out the fact that this group in particular does possess critical thinking ability to see through propaganda from establishment media. I'm sure there are intelligent people on the left, but they either lack critical thinking skills to realize that they are dancing to the tune of predatory neoliberal elites or they simply use their ideology to gain power and wealth.
    Again, this is propaganda, mate - so your opposition is either a) too naive to understand their being led astray because they do not possess critical thinking, and b) they're corrupt who use ideology to get rich, famous and powerful. Of course, in your sentence the group 'leftists' are in juxtaposition silently with the 'right', who have both a monopoly on moral virtue and on critical thinking. You're just creating straw-men now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    They are free to react by debating in good faith. As I said, the issue is that left is incapable to present argument in favor of its ideas, hence attempts to slander opposition as "evil" and then attempt to justify censorship and physical violence.
    Would you say the alt-right debates in good faith? Watch this.

    Also, you guys keep on misrepresenting what the free marketplace of ideas is. Again, here:

    The argument is that truth will emerge in an open marketplace of ideas. Given an economic twist, it is claimed that the competitive market for speech will maximize truth just as competitive markets in other goods are best in economic terms. If government does not interfere with this market, knowledge will be maximized.
    This prevents state authorities from intervening. Your widening of the definition is not only factually in error, it's also enabling and dubious.
    Last edited by Kritias; August 01, 2019 at 03:03 AM.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

  9. #49

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    1984 should be described not as a futuristic romance or an elaborate political manifesto, but as the embodiment of Orwell's private feud against Stalin and the Communist Parties. It all started in Democratic Spain, where Orwell's "hippie" and "gentlemanly" leftism was casually defeated by the remarkably more disciplined, organised and powerful Communist Party of Spain and its various allies. Orwell never recovered from the collapse of his utopian dreams, so he channeled his bitterness to 1984. This is why, in reality, 1984 is not a masterpiece, but a very mediocre piece, because, similarly to other "vendetta diatribes", the author's goal is not write a qualitative story, capable of pleasing and sparking the interest of his audience, but, on the contrary, to villify his adversaries and to promote his agenda, no matter the cost.
    You are wrong, and really don't know what you are talking about. The world of 1984 was clearly style after the Communist Soviet Union, and many of the elements in it are exactly what the Communist did do. The constant rewriting of history that Winston engaged in is exactly the thing that the Communist did do. There is nothing private or petty to be opposed to the totalatarism found in the Soviet Union as try to imply. You many have supported the large scale killings and purges committed by the Communist, but many, not just Orwell, opposed those kinds of actions. In 1948, many were intellectual were still applauding and support communism, and down playing its dangers. The British government was riddled with high ranking officials who were Soviet agents, and scientist sympathetic to communism gave vital military secrets to the Soviets aiding. It was to warn people of the dangers of such a system and similar systems thst 1984 was writting. Apologist for communism frequently try to dismiss 1984, but much of what it said was spot on what the communism actually did. The only reason the world of 1984 did not become a total reality is that in our world, unlike that of 1984, the Communist were never able.to.impose their system on the entire world. The mere existence of the West gave hope to dissidents. In the world of 1984, there is no where Winston Smith can escape to. Many, my self include, do think 1984 is a great book..





    Isaac Asimov's review, who is an expert on the subject and could be considered as ideologically closer to Orwell than to Kremlin, enumerates all the novel's issues. To give a brief summary, Orwell fails at almost all his predictions (the exception being the geopolitical rivalry between the USSR and PRC), while his venom is so extravagant that his invented methods of censorship, surveillance and propaganda openly defy logic and common sense. 1984 also severely lacks in creativity, as Orwell limits himself to copy-pasting the history of the Soviet Union since the October Revolution. Big Brother has a big, fat moustache, while Orwell highlights Goldstein's Jewish features. Get it, they represent Stalin and Trotsky!
    Thanks again
    Issac Asimov didnt know what he was talking about, and was not a professional historian either. The rewriting of history, which Asimov dismissed, actually occurred, he just didn't know what he was talking about. Frankly, Asimov is.mone of the most overrated writers ever. His Foundation series is modeled after grade schooler knowledge of the Middle Ages, and anyone who has actually studied the real middle ages knows that Asimovr clearly didn't know what the middle ages were really like. I laughed when when he had people in the Foundation series still having space ships but thinking atomic energy was somehow magic, which is such nonsense. If you have the knowledge to figure out spaceships, you can figure out atomic energy. I remember his crap article in his Asimov magazine on how ridiculous it was for the need to rewrite history showed just how much ignorant he wAs of true history. The Soviets really did revised history books and edit pictures, contrary to what Asimov thought.

    So, how did 1984 became so famous and vaunted, despite its undeniable weaknesses? Its perception owes a lot to its clear political undertones. Initially, the book had difficulties in getting published, because the Soviet Union was an invaluable ally in the war against the Third Reich. Then, 1984 was praised by conservatives as a convenient anathema to the new geopolitical rival of Washington and London and somewhat later by liberals, as a critique towards the American government's shady practices. Nowadays, it's the turn of the far-right to exploit a truly abused book, because it identifies the Big Brother's totalitarianism with the "cosmopolitan, Bolshevik elite" that supposedly conspires against the persecuted patriots. Of course, as a result of the fact that the far-right movement is familiarised neither with 1984 nor with literature, in general, the adjective "Orwellian" is spammed at such a ridiculous extent that it has lost its meaning. It usually refers to instances where the exceptionally fragile sensitivities of the alt-right are violated:

    This concerns political correctness (e.g. describing the far-right in more accurate and less mild terms), safe-space (e.g. accounts of alt-right activists being banned in social media, due to rule-breaching) or even outright "snowflakery" (silencing any opinion which may contradict the far-right's narrative). In conclusion, the content of 1984 has a long tradition of getting taken advantage by various political sides, of which only a tiny portion has actually managed to fully read and understand the slightly incoherent, unimaginative and boring adventures of Winston. Personally, I feel a bit sorry for Orwell, because he should have certainly been frustrated over nationalists idolizing his work, but that's the obligatory price you pay, when you publish a political rant under the thin guise of a dystopian novel.

    Orwell may have been critical of both far right send fat left, but the revising of history by actually revising document is was actually done by the Left in the Soviet Union. The left is still trying to rewrite history books in an Orwellian fashion, insisting it is far more important to know who Harriet Tubbman was than Grant, Lincoln, or even the causes of the Civil War. The Left, which dominates American schools, has done a superb job of ensuring American students are ignorant of history, and pretty ignorant in general. Depsite ranking #among the top 5 nations in spending (The Atlantic Dec 3, 2013 article). 1984 really doesn't describe the alt right that well, but did accurately describes the left in the Soviet Union, and much of what the left is still doing today. I know lot of the left dismisses Orwell's work, but that is because he does a good job criticizing it because he used the knowledge of an insider. We


    the
    Below I quote Isaac Asimov's review, because, unlike 1984 itself, is incredibly accurate about the strength, flaws and prospects of its subject:
    Unlike Asimov's work, 1984 is regarded as a classic, and shows a true and accurate knowledge of it's subject, while Asimov shows the knowledge of middle schooler who obtained his knowledge of history by reading "History for Dummies". In the Asimov article, Asimov cited the exams of how we no longer know where certain battles were fought as proof that rewriting history as portrayed in 1984 was unnecessary.and ridiculous.

    Instead it merely showed that Asimov didn't know what he was talking about. The mere fact we know the battle was fought shows that it was not forgotten and is an argument against Asimov's very claims. We don't know where a battle was fought because the landscape may have changed greatly over the years, and look very different from when it was fought. Besides, knowledge of where a battle was fought is geographical knowledge , which is different from historical knowledge. On a lot of historical battles that I know, I have only a hazy knowledge of where they were actually fought. Without having g to look it up, could you accurstely locate the Battle of Gettysburg on a map, with just having the shape of Pennsylvania, and no names of the towns listed? The Battle of Bull Run? Verdun?

    Asimov critizes Orwell's failure to predict certain technological advances, yet Asimov failed to predict a number of technological advances like cell phones, smart phones and lap tops, which makes him as much a technology phone as he accuses Orwell to be. And the shortages in shoelaces and razors he criticized in 1984 is the kind of shortages in consumer goods that occur in Communist countries, that is a reality. Just ask Venuezala.and its shortages of things like toilet paper. Asimov criticism stems from plain ignorance and failure to know real history. I still use s regular razor myself, so he apparent belief everyone in the future would use only eldctic razors is founded his ignorance and arrogance. Asimov also clearly missed a key element in the book, that was obvious but Asimov was too arrogant and incompetent to see. The government of 1984 is deliberately suppressing technology and indeed life style to maintain control. Advancing technology is a great danger to a autocratic state like 1984, it is impossible to predict or control how technology will change society. A government like 1984 would seek to stifle technology, just keeping the technology it absolutely needs. Since all the governments are the same in 1984, it does not have to worry about a free and unfettered West creating technology it can't control or stifle. 1984 makes it very clear that the government is deliberately suppressing living standards, conducting wars to use up excess production to keep living standards down to maintain control. Even though this was made clear in the book, Asimov was ignorant of all this, which makes his review garbage.

    Another point which Asimov does not note is how accurate Orwell was in is depiction. He ackowledged that it was modeled after the Soviet Union of Orwell's day, but some ofnth things 1984 depicted were.still of the Soviet Union of his day. The dreary architecture, the constant new 5 year plans, still remained true of the later Soviet Union.

    Finally, Asimov missed what even his other fellow science fiction pickdd up on, and and was an element of 1984's book. In a system like that of 1984, there is no internal threat to the government, it has total control, nor there is there any external threat either, since the other governments are just like it, so it is no danger of being overthrown. It is only side forced that can topple such totaltarian regime. Larry Niven in World of Time has one of the characters state such an idea, where the main character states a similar idea.
    8,


    [Quot
    Nope, that's an incorrect interpretation of the book. The entire point of Animal Farm is how Napoleon and the pigs hijacked the otherwise justified uprising against human oppression, by imposing a new hierarchy, with themselves at the top. Napoleon and the pigs gradually evolve into corrupt human versions and do not even hesitate to cooperate with the former tyrants of the farm. Animal Farm is a pretty obvious allegory about how the Stalinists betrayed the Russian Revolution and, instead of applying the noble principles of Socialism Orwell deeply admired, established an authoritarian regime. The goal of the book was to underline the distinction between what Orwell perceived as nefarious radical Communism and the more moderate leftist ideology he personally espoused. Similarly to Animal Farm, 1984 is also part of Orwell's personal crusade against Stalin.[/Quote]

    That what I thought I was saying. It was I who pointed out that Animal Farm mirrored the history of the Soviet Union. I.waz responding to the original.poster who was implying that Animal Farm was much about the right as the left, and I pointed out that wasn't true, that it was modeled after the events in the Soviet Union. The corruption began when the pigs set themselves up higher than the other animals. In doing so, they merely replaced the oppress rule by the humans with that by themselves (pigs). That is kind of what the Communist did in Russian, the replaced the oppressive rule of the Czars with the oppressive rule.of the Communist Party.
    .



    We
    Last edited by Common Soldier; August 01, 2019 at 07:29 AM.

  10. #50

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Sorry for double posting, as you can see Hammer's reply came a few minutes after I was done ironing mine - and didn't see his points. With that said,



    a. You're arguing about what should be the case, not what the case currently is. Facebook and YouTube aren't defined as public forums, so what you think should apply to them doesn't legally apply. This is an important issue if controversy is generated about the Orwellian social media because of misidentifying what these platforms are required by law to do. Which brings me to actual legislation:
    As I said, laws move on together with technological progress. We already see US government looking into anti-trust measures, which is one way to curb enthusiasm of big tech censorship.
    b. That's -- false. A company has a board of directors, voted upon by the shareholders and trusted with the how, why, by what means, for what profits etc the company will work. There's cases where the decision of the board of directors to move the company or alter the company's mode of production was taken and proven in court to be in the economic detriment of the shareholders, but there's no law -nor should there ever be- that says content generating profit should be immune to laws of slander, incitement to future or imminent violence, civic agitation etc

    c. I don't think you really know British law if you say that, and I don't think you even understand US law on freedom of speech. I include the UK and US censorship legislations for your benefit.

    d. Censorship is censorship - nowhere in the world is there a place where you can say whatever you want, whenever you want it, without repercussions as internal or external censorship. You can fact check me here. So, you're bringing a philosophic argument and want to present it as an actual legal reason for saying that you're being restricted by corporations, the left, or the government. And that's factually wrong.
    b. Now, my point is factual: there are laws under which companies are not allowed to willingly jeopardize interests of shareholders. Big Tech censorship falls perfectly into the category.
    c. Well, we know that you can't get arrested for posting a joke on youtube. O r rap lyrics. Or effigy parody video. Or plenty of other things that British regime arrested citizens for. Basically the only way you can get arrested in US over saying something is uttering immediate threats of violence, which is very well defined and can't just be arbitrarily applied to anything like British version of "hate speech" is.
    e. As I said, functionally there is no difference between private or public censorship.

    I highlighted the problematic parts. Firstly, regressive means returning to a former or less developed state; the alt-right is doing that with their rhetoric of white homelands and ethno-states, which characterized movement's of the mid-2oth century. Even the slogan 'Make my country great again' means that it must have been so in the past - therefore, regression to a previous state considered to be greater. And what's that time in history exactly? Because it's left purposefully vague. Unless they hint to what the cry is going to be on the next elections. Har Har.
    It is fair to say that modern left is regressive. We already heard similar rhetoric somewhere that we hear from modern left today. Certain Vladimir Uljanov (fake name Lenin), that committed mass murder in Russia, killing and starving millions of innocent people.
    Dragging Western society towards 1920s is regressive.
    I am doing this right now.
    You are arguing to crush free market of ideas and base what is acceptable or not based on your own personal paradigm which is grounded in modern liberal left paradigm. Essentially your arguments are those of NSDAP functioner who wants to install censorship in early days of Third Reich. Or Soviet one.
    Again, this is propaganda, mate - so your opposition is either a) too naive to understand their being led astray because they do not possess critical thinking, and b) they're corrupt who use ideology to get rich, famous and powerful. Of course, in your sentence the group 'leftists' are in juxtaposition silently with the 'right', who have both a monopoly on moral virtue and on critical thinking. You're just creating straw-men now.
    Not really. You don't need to do much thinking to become a liberal leftist - just watch TV and nod. To become "right-wing" you need to disagree with mainstream opinions. That requires critical thinking ability to stand up to authority.
    Would you say the alt-right debates in good faith? Watch this.

    Also, you guys keep on misrepresenting what the free marketplace of ideas is. Again, here:



    This prevents state authorities from intervening. Your widening of the definition is not only factually in error, it's also enabling and dubious.
    As I said in my first point here, laws change together with technology. Today it just makes sense to include corporations along with the state since they do now possess similar power, which they have no right to have, if our society is a true democracy.

  11. #51
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,344

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    As I said, laws move on together with technological progress. We already see US government looking into anti-trust measures, which is one way to curb enthusiasm of big tech censorship.
    Again, no. Any private company has a right to decide what goes on in their platform and what doesn't. You're arguing about what you think should be the case, not what the case is. And I've been showing you on another thread a certain Sargon who actually makes excuses for terrorism acts like Charlottesville because the alt-right "has no other option". This message has not been removed nor the dozens of comments underneath that - if the Orwellian machine was working this wouldn't be the case now, would it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    b. Now, my point is factual: there are laws under which companies are not allowed to willingly jeopardize interests of shareholders. Big Tech censorship falls perfectly into the category.
    No. The responsibility of a company towards its shareholders is to make them money, the way of making said money resting to the board of directors of every company. Also, every company can stack laws to create their own terms of service - terms of service you, as a user, agree to in order to use the platform. So, when a company demonetizes/takes down a video/post its because of violations of same terms of service. Same as here in TWC, where we adhere to the ToS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    c. Well, we know that you can't get arrested for posting a joke on youtube. O r rap lyrics. Or effigy parody video. Or plenty of other things that British regime arrested citizens for. Basically the only way you can get arrested in US over saying something is uttering immediate threats of violence, which is very well defined and can't just be arbitrarily applied to anything like British version of "hate speech" is.
    What British regime are you talking about? The laws on free speech of the United Kingdom has been in place for quite some time now. In 1996, the UK enabled the Human Rights act that defines limits on freedom of speech

    “in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”
    Hate speech laws are even older, stemming from the Public Order Act of 1986

    "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress"
    So... no.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    It is fair to say that modern left is regressive. We already heard similar rhetoric somewhere that we hear from modern left today. Certain Vladimir Uljanov (fake name Lenin), that committed mass murder in Russia, killing and starving millions of innocent people.
    Dragging Western society towards 1920s is regressive.
    It took you quite a time until you reached the point where the Left equals communism. Do you think I type this while doing the Cossack dance, too? All joking aside, I believe this is the point where your arguments are not made in good faith anymore. Some people on the left will call people out as fascists, and yes some will jump the gun and name a few of the right as neo-nazis, but 99% of the times they get it right. But to be discussing the American Left, the most conservative and most un-ideological Left in the world right now and try to compare them to communists is just dishonest. If only you observed French politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    You are arguing to crush free market of ideas and base what is acceptable or not based on your own personal paradigm which is grounded in modern liberal left paradigm. Essentially your arguments are those of NSDAP functioner who wants to install censorship in early days of Third Reich. Or Soviet one.
    The free market of ideas doesn't apply to arguments between private individuals or corporations, it only applies when the opposing party of that argument is the government. The reason for this is so that you won't get arrested if you are expressing your opinion, or be otherwise hindered or persecuted by your government. Which is all to the good. So, I am not arguing to 'crush' any freedom - I am pointing out to you that you're mistaken on how you think this freedom works.

    You're also right in the sense that I do base what is right on the law, and to a greater extend to ideas stemming from the enlightenment - namely that every human being has some inalienable rights that I cannot but protect, even if they are not a citizen.

    But, Hammer... You need to make up your mind. I can either be a Nazi, or a communist - I can't be both on the same time. Also, again, I don't think we can debate this any further since your latest defense is just plain Red Scare. But i'll humor you and ask you to point out to me how the American Left is equivalent to Communism in Russia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Not really. You don't need to do much thinking to become a liberal leftist - just watch TV and nod. To become "right-wing" you need to disagree with mainstream opinions. That requires critical thinking ability to stand up to authority.
    Mate, this is self-flattering propaganda. You want to believe that you guys have a monopoly on 'virtue', 'intelligence', 'logic' and 'critical thinking'. You add the heroic disagreement with mainstream opinions. I will just remind you that when people really disagreed with the state, they got put to prison in their thousands, got blacklisted and lost their entire lives. They weren't demonetized from YouTube.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    As I said in my first point here, laws change together with technology. Today it just makes sense to include corporations along with the state since they do now possess similar power, which they have no right to have, if our society is a true democracy.
    Care to explain this segment here?
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

  12. #52

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Care to explain this segment here?
    Well he’s way off conceptually. Laws don’t change together with technology. They lag behind technology by like years. The most you can hope for until new law is passed for new technology is new policy that the courts won’t overrule because no, the law doesn’t actually say that.
    Last edited by Gaidin; August 02, 2019 at 07:37 PM.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  13. #53

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Again, no. Any private company has a right to decide what goes on in their platform and what doesn't. You're arguing about what you think should be the case, not what the case is. And I've been showing you on another thread a certain Sargon who actually makes excuses for terrorism acts like Charlottesville because the alt-right "has no other option". This message has not been removed nor the dozens of comments underneath that - if the Orwellian machine was working this wouldn't be the case now, would it?
    Actually Sargon didn't make any excuses for terrorism (it was actually me who debunked that claim), but doing away with oligopolies right to deny someone platform is a small sacrifice in the grand scheme of things and would benefit society in the long term.
    No. The responsibility of a company towards its shareholders is to make them money, the way of making said money resting to the board of directors of every company. Also, every company can stack laws to create their own terms of service - terms of service you, as a user, agree to in order to use the platform. So, when a company demonetizes/takes down a video/post its because of violations of same terms of service. Same as here in TWC, where we adhere to the ToS.
    I'm fairly certain that Big Tech going on partisan crusade at shareholder's dime and denying shareholders profits from banned content isn't going to fly well both fiscally and legally.
    What British regime are you talking about? The laws on free speech of the United Kingdom has been in place for quite some time now. In 1996, the UK enabled the Human Rights act that defines limits on freedom of speech



    Hate speech laws are even older, stemming from the Public Order Act of 1986



    So... no.
    UK doesn't offer freedom of speech. Essentially, they have none, just like people in China, Iran, Germany or Russia.

    It took you quite a time until you reached the point where the Left equals communism. Do you think I type this while doing the Cossack dance, too? All joking aside, I believe this is the point where your arguments are not made in good faith anymore. Some people on the left will call people out as fascists, and yes some will jump the gun and name a few of the right as neo-nazis, but 99% of the times they get it right. But to be discussing the American Left, the most conservative and most un-ideological Left in the world right now and try to compare them to communists is just dishonest. If only you observed French politics.
    Didn't say that left equals communism, but this is why modern Western left being regressive is the problem. Just look at Democrat debates.
    The free market of ideas doesn't apply to arguments between private individuals or corporations, it only applies when the opposing party of that argument is the government. The reason for this is so that you won't get arrested if you are expressing your opinion, or be otherwise hindered or persecuted by your government. Which is all to the good. So, I am not arguing to 'crush' any freedom - I am pointing out to you that you're mistaken on how you think this freedom works.
    If corporations try to hinder society's capacity to exchange ideas, then legal measures are required to prevent that. I think we both can agree that corporate CEOs shouldn't have the political power to determine what can be said on the Internet.
    Mate, this is self-flattering propaganda. You want to believe that you guys have a monopoly on 'virtue', 'intelligence', 'logic' and 'critical thinking'. You add the heroic disagreement with mainstream opinions. I will just remind you that when people really disagreed with the state, they got put to prison in their thousands, got blacklisted and lost their entire lives. They weren't demonetized from YouTube.
    That already happens to people in UK. PPlus let's not lie to ourselves - Big Tech purging wrongthink is hardly any different from 30s bookburnings.
    Unlike UK, US has been largely safeguarded by its constitution, hence why basic freedoms to own firearms and free speech are still there.
    Care to explain this segment here?
    As technology marches on, so do the laws. The choice is between handing over immense political power to corporate CEOs or to either take away their "right" to deny someone platform, or to break them up. It seems US government is choosing 3d option, which is still a wise decision. I think we both can agree that letting Zuckerberg make major political decisions just because he owns a big social media company is a bad idea.

  14. #54
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,344

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Actually Sargon didn't make any excuses for terrorism (it was actually me who debunked that claim), but doing away with oligopolies right to deny someone platform is a small sacrifice in the grand scheme of things and would benefit society in the long term.
    I assume you refer to this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Where did he justify it? All he did is give his take on why it happens. Its like if I say "there are car accidents because of poor traffic laws". I'm not saying that car accidents are justified, I'm explaining why they happen. Now you can argue with Sargon's take on whether these are the reasons for domestic terrorism, but saying that he is justifying it is intellectual dishonest.
    According to Sargon, the alt-right committed terrorist acts because they "lack any other option". Heathen, Heathen, Heathen... When someone says that something happened because 'there was no other way', the reasonable deduction is one of apology for the act itself. So, no. He excused terror acts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    I'm fairly certain that Big Tech going on partisan crusade at shareholder's dime and denying shareholders profits from banned content isn't going to fly well both fiscally and legally.
    Every company has its ToS and they are obliged to run according to those rules. If you don't like the rules, or you think they're arbitrary, you can protest against them. Many have done so and their content has been restored and re-monetized. Saying there's some big liberal/neo-marxist conspiracy behind you breaking the ToS and getting demonetized is... well, dishonest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    UK doesn't offer freedom of speech. Essentially, they have none, just like people in China, Iran, Germany or Russia.
    You bundle up a People's Republic, a theocracy, a federal democracy, an essential oligarchy posing as a democracy and a constitutional monarchy as if they were the same thing. This argument is dishonest and misleading, at best. It's very interesting, as well, since the two European countries you name as not having freedom of speech actually score higher than the US in freedom of press, Germany being in the 15th place, and the United Kingdom in the 40th. The US in in the 45th place. In the Human Freedom Index, the US is in the 28th place, while the UK is in the 18th and Germany in the 9th place. In the Democracy index, both Germany (13th) and the UK (14th) score higher than the US (25th). Only in the Economic Freedom Index, the US is in the 11th place while Germany is on the 24th - but still the UK scores higher and is in the 7th. So, please, be more respectful of these two countries in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Didn't say that left equals communism, but this is why modern Western left being regressive is the problem. Just look at Democrat debates.
    You're being dishonest now so I will quote you

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    It is fair to say that modern left is regressive. We already heard similar rhetoric somewhere that we hear from modern left today. Certain Vladimir Uljanov (fake name Lenin), that committed mass murder in Russia, killing and starving millions of innocent people.
    Dragging Western society towards 1920s is regressive.
    Here you're implying that communist revolutionary, Lenin, is being rehashed by the American Left of all political movements. The inclusion of killing and starving millions of people nonsense is only serving to create a mental image that this will be the end of the road for the politics of the American Left. Own what you say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    If corporations try to hinder society's capacity to exchange ideas, then legal measures are required to prevent that. I think we both can agree that corporate CEOs shouldn't have the political power to determine what can be said on the Internet.
    Once again, you're arguing for what you think should be happening, now what is allowed by law to happen. The big tech aren't breaking any laws on this front, which is kinda surprising to say the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    That already happens to people in UK. PPlus let's not lie to ourselves - Big Tech purging wrongthink is hardly any different from 30s bookburnings.
    No. On the Uk bit, read my answer below. On the purging of wrong-think and you trying to depict that as the 3os book burnings.... You do understand that all companies have their Terms of Service and it's been the custom of deleting content in breach of that ToS right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Unlike UK, US has been largely safeguarded by its constitution, hence why basic freedoms to own firearms and free speech are still there.
    Saying the United Kingdom, a country that scores higher in all social and economic indexes than the United States, is somehow on the path to become some sort of nightmarish autocracy is staggeringly dishonest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    As technology marches on, so do the laws. The choice is between handing over immense political power to corporate CEOs or to either take away their "right" to deny someone platform, or to break them up. It seems US government is choosing 3d option, which is still a wise decision. I think we both can agree that letting Zuckerberg make major political decisions just because he owns a big social media company is a bad idea.
    I think that Facebook needs regulation because it has supplanted television and the radio in how people are informed nowadays. This due to the fact that instead of being informed by accountable corporations that I could find their shareholders, their advertisers, and their moneyed interests to deduce some sort of motive for the framing of the news in any particular way, I now get these sponsored and shared news based on some algorithm bundling me with some demographic. What's worse, even when the news are not sponsored, I get a news-feed cramped by articles from obscure sites with links that lead to practically nowhere and with stories so badly put together that collapse into nothing within days, even if they have been shared and read a million times by then. Articles filled to the brim with dishonest, misleading half-trues posing as 'facts' - and for what? Because people discovered the fact that getting people mad makes them more money.
    Last edited by Kritias; August 03, 2019 at 05:56 PM. Reason: Spelling bee last place. So sad.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

  15. #55

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    I assume you refer to this.
    According to Sargon, the alt-right committed terrorist acts because they "lack any other option". Heathen, Heathen, Heathen... When someone says that something happened because 'there was no other way', the reasonable deduction is one of apology for the act itself. So, no. He excused terror acts.
    Explaining why it happened isn't excusing.
    Every company has its ToS and they are obliged to run according to those rules. If you don't like the rules, or you think they're arbitrary, you can protest against them. Many have done so and their content has been restored and re-monetized. Saying there's some big liberal/neo-marxist conspiracy behind you breaking the ToS and getting demonetized is... well, dishonest.
    Not really. It is quite clear that defining factor behind recent purges in Big Tech platforms is partisan bias.
    You bundle up a People's Republic, a theocracy, a federal democracy, an essential oligarchy posing as a democracy and a constitutional monarchy as if they were the same thing. This argument is dishonest and misleading, at best. It's very interesting, as well, since the two European countries you name as not having freedom of speech actually score higher than the US in freedom of press, Germany being in the 15th place, and the United Kingdom in the 40th. The US in in the 45th place. In the Human Freedom Index, the US is in the 28th place, while the UK is in the 18th and Germany in the 9th place. In the Democracy index, both Germany (13th) and the UK (14th) score higher than the US (25th). Only in the Economic Freedom Index, the US is in the 11th place while Germany is on the 24th - but still the UK scores higher and is in the 7th. So, please, be more respectful of these two countries in the future.
    I'm respectful of countries, however as supporters of freedom of speech and other individual freedom, it is our duty to be disrespectful to the states and politicians that impede on such freedoms.I have nothing against Britons or Germans, but their governments are authoritarian trash.
    You're being dishonest now so I will quote you
    Here you're implying that communist revolutionary, Lenin, is being rehashed by the American Left of all political movements. The inclusion of killing and starving millions of people nonsense is only serving to create a mental image that this will be the end of the road for the politics of the American Left. Own what you say.
    Again, that's question to some of the Democratic candidates, and not to me, who just notices things.
    Once again, you're arguing for what you think should be happening, now what is allowed by law to happen. The big tech aren't breaking any laws on this front, which is kinda surprising to say the least.
    As I said above, laws change along with technology. This is the case where laws should be changed to adjust to modern technological conditions.
    No. On the Uk bit, read my answer below. On the purging of wrong-think and you trying to depict that as the 3os book burnings.... You do understand that all companies have their Terms of Service and it's been the custom of deleting content in breach of that ToS right?
    UK is dangerously authoritarian when it comes to citizen's rights of speech, so my point about it is valid. Terms of Service can be arbitrary and if media in question is big enough, impede society's capacity to exchange ideas - this is where law has to step in.
    Saying the United Kingdom, a country that scores higher in all social and economic indexes than the United States, is somehow on the path to become some sort of nightmarish autocracy is staggeringly dishonest.
    No its not dishonest. People get arrested and go to jail there for things like youtube videos and tweets. UK government deserves every bit of dirt thrown at it and more.
    I think that Facebook needs regulation because it has supplanted television and the radio in how people are informed nowadays. This due to the fact that instead of being informed by accountable corporations that I could find their shareholders, their advertisers, and their moneyed interests to deduce some sort of motive for the framing of the news in any particular way, I now get these sponsored and shared news based on some algorithm bundling me with some demographic. What's worse, even when the news are not sponsored, I get a news-feed cramped by articles from obscure sites with links that lead to practically nowhere and with stories so badly put together that collapse into nothing within days, even if they have been shared and read a million times by then. Articles filled to the brim with dishonest, misleading half-trues posing as 'facts' - and for what? Because people discovered the fact that getting people mad makes them more money.
    So I guess we are progressing here - and we finally agree that there is nothing wrong with taking away Big tech's right to deny someone platform based on arbitrary nonsense.

  16. #56
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,344

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Explaining why it happened isn't excusing.
    Saying there's ''no other option'' isn't an explanation of why terrorist attacks happen. You wouldn't accept that for ISIS, so stop making excuses for Sargon's excuses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Not really. It is quite clear that defining factor behind recent purges in Big Tech platforms is partisan bias.
    Any company can have a ToS which you, as the user, agree to in order to use the service. Saying that the enforcement is partisan requires some proof. Let's have it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    I'm respectful of countries, however as supporters of freedom of speech and other individual freedom, it is our duty to be disrespectful to the states and politicians that impede on such freedoms.I have nothing against Britons or Germans, but their governments are authoritarian trash.
    I just showed you on my previous post how Germany and the United Kingdom actually score as freer than the United States in all freedom indexes. If their governments were authoritarian trash, that wouldn't be the case. Also saying that for a foreign government isn't respectful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Again, that's question to some of the Democratic candidates, and not to me, who just notices things.
    You offered the same argument twice. Read my answer on this on my previous post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    As I said above, laws change along with technology. This is the case where laws should be changed to adjust to modern technological conditions.
    Once again, should vs is. What you think should happen versus what the lawmakers seem to think should be happening.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    UK is dangerously authoritarian when it comes to citizen's rights of speech, so my point about it is valid. Terms of Service can be arbitrary and if media in question is big enough, impede society's capacity to exchange ideas - this is where law has to step in.

    No its not dishonest. People get arrested and go to jail there for things like youtube videos and tweets. UK government deserves every bit of dirt thrown at it and more.
    The United Kingdom scores higher than the US in all freedom indexes. Either you're being misinformed, which don't seem willing to admit, or the United Kingdom is hiding its authoritarianism very, very well from the researchers making these indexes - but if that were the case Fox and Breitbart wouldn't be able to discover the truth to report it to you, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    So I guess we are progressing here - and we finally agree that there is nothing wrong with taking away Big tech's right to deny someone platform based on arbitrary nonsense.
    That's not what I said. Read the last part of my previous post again, please.

    I think that Facebook needs regulation because it has supplanted television and the radio in how people are informed nowadays. This due to the fact that instead of being informed by accountable corporations that I could find their shareholders, their advertisers, and their moneyed interests to deduce some sort of motive for the framing of the news in any particular way, I now get these sponsored and shared news based on some algorithm bundling me with some demographic. What's worse, even when the news are not sponsored, I get a news-feed cramped by articles from obscure sites with links that lead to practically nowhere and with stories so badly put together that collapse into nothing within days, even if they have been shared and read a million times by then. Articles filled to the brim with dishonest, misleading half-trues posing as 'facts' - and for what? Because people discovered the fact that getting people mad makes them more money.
    This clearly is targeted towards the existence of fake news and misinformation on FB and advocates for its removal. I am not agreeing with you on this.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

  17. #57

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Saying there's ''no other option'' isn't an explanation of why terrorist attacks happen. You wouldn't accept that for ISIS, so stop making excuses for Sargon's excuses.
    Explaining why ISIS came to be isn't justifying it either.
    Any company can have a ToS which you, as the user, agree to in order to use the service. Saying that the enforcement is partisan requires some proof. Let's have it.
    As it was pointed out in Big tech thread, if censorship is based on political alignment then it only makes sense to recognize it as partisan.
    I just showed you on my previous post how Germany and the United Kingdom actually score as freer than the United States in all freedom indexes. If their governments were authoritarian trash, that wouldn't be the case. Also saying that for a foreign government isn't respectful.
    If these government's weren't authoritarian trash, they'd have freedom of speech for their citizens and wouldn't arrest or jail people for saying stuff on social media. And good, these governments should not be respected for this exact reason.
    You offered the same argument twice. Read my answer on this on my previous post.
    I did. I think you are missing the point entirely.
    Once again, should vs is. What you think should happen versus what the lawmakers seem to think should be happening.
    Well, government is already looking into anti-trust, so I am right.
    The United Kingdom scores higher than the US in all freedom indexes. Either you're being misinformed, which don't seem willing to admit, or the United Kingdom is hiding its authoritarianism very, very well from the researchers making these indexes - but if that were the case Fox and Breitbart wouldn't be able to discover the truth to report it to you, either.
    We have evidence that UK jails people for posts on social media and other things that would be unthinkable in US. UK also doesn't allow its citizens to own firearms and defend themselves. Those indexes either disregard such blatant violations of basic individual freedoms, or they are inaccurate.

  18. #58
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,344

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Explaining why ISIS came to be isn't justifying it either.
    Saying someone is committing terrorsim 'out of lacking other options' does not explain how either group came to be, so this interpretation is dishonest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    As it was pointed out in Big tech thread, if censorship is based on political alignment then it only makes sense to recognize it as partisan.
    Prove that it's partisan. I showed you Sargon defending terrorism coming from white nationalists, yet his post is still up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    If these government's weren't authoritarian trash, they'd have freedom of speech for their citizens and wouldn't arrest or jail people for saying stuff on social media. And good, these governments should not be respected for this exact reason.
    Again, both countries score as freer in every index than the United States. Also, you do understand that these countries protect freedom of speech, but not incitement to violence? I assume that the 'jailing' people part goes for stories such as this. But in this case the Facebook comment was actually motivating other people in the island to attack the thirteen families of refugees settled there. So, nah.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    I did. I think you are missing the point entirely.
    Am I? You drew parallels between USSR under Lenin and the modern American Left. Here it is,

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    It is fair to say that modern left is regressive. We already heard similar rhetoric somewhere that we hear from modern left today. Certain Vladimir Uljanov (fake name Lenin), that committed mass murder in Russia, killing and starving millions of innocent people. Dragging Western society towards 1920s is regressive.
    So, please tell me what point I am missing entirely. Because I called this dishonest and asked you to prove that the USSR has any connections with the modern American Left and you're still dodging. Which means you simply repeated the cultural neomarxist conspiracy theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Well, government is already looking into anti-trust, so I am right.
    Nope, you're still wrong. Anti-trust doesn't investigate how the social media platforms handle individual user content but how different companies can advertise on these platforms. So, at best you've misunderstood what the DoJ is actually investigating, at worse you're being dishonest about it. Here's an article to edify the controversy for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    We have evidence that UK jails people for posts on social media and other things that would be unthinkable in US. UK also doesn't allow its citizens to own firearms and defend themselves. Those indexes either disregard such blatant violations of basic individual freedoms, or they are inaccurate.
    Warte jetzt. Wacht. The United Kingdom's policy on firearms is their own business and demanding that a U.S ammendment should be part of another country's policies, which hasn't been since 1968 [here] is at least dishonest debating. You should respect other countries, and their constitutions - that's what's being democratic [sentiment on governance type, not partisan here] is all about. There's no human right on gun owning, either. So, the 'blatant violations of basic individual freedoms' is also inaccurate. Also, people going to jail for social media posts - check again the video I provided above, where the man arrested was inciting for violence. Even in America, you can and will be jailed if you incite immediate or future violence which means these people would be arrested in your country, too. So, again, inaccurate.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

  19. #59

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Saying someone is committing terrorsim 'out of lacking other options' does not explain how either group came to be, so this interpretation is dishonest.
    You are the one taking the quote out of context here.
    Prove that it's partisan. I showed you Sargon defending terrorism coming from white nationalists, yet his post is still up.
    Him defending terrorism there is just your opinion.
    Again, both countries score as freer in every index than the United States. Also, you do understand that these countries protect freedom of speech, but not incitement to violence? I assume that the 'jailing' people part goes for stories such as this. But in this case the Facebook comment was actually motivating other people in the island to attack the thirteen families of refugees settled there. So, nah.
    I don't see how what Dankula did is incitement of violence. Nor posting rap lyrics. Again,. those indexes can say that north Korea is the best place in the world, but in reality it certainly won't make it so.
    Am I? You drew parallels between USSR under Lenin and the modern American Left. Here it is,
    So, please tell me what point I am missing entirely. Because I called this dishonest and asked you to prove that the USSR has any connections with the modern American Left and you're still dodging. Which means you simply repeated the cultural neomarxist conspiracy theory.
    Its fairly obvious that using same rhetoric could lead to same results. Point is that modern Western left is very regressive and not pragmatic at all.
    Nope, you're still wrong. Anti-trust doesn't investigate how the social media platforms handle individual user content but how different companies can advertise on these platforms. So, at best you've misunderstood what the DoJ is actually investigating, at worse you're being dishonest about it. Here's an article to edify the controversy for you.
    Advertising and user content are very related. Also see my above point about questionable legality of Youtube and Facebook jeopardizing their shareholder's interests by removing potentially profitable content due to political bias.
    Warte jetzt. Wacht. The United Kingdom's policy on firearms is their own business and demanding that a U.S ammendment should be part of another country's policies, which hasn't been since 1968 [here] is at least dishonest debating. You should respect other countries, and their constitutions - that's what's being democratic [sentiment on governance type, not partisan here] is all about. There's no human right on gun owning, either. So, the 'blatant violations of basic individual freedoms' is also inaccurate. Also, people going to jail for social media posts - check again the video I provided above, where the man arrested was inciting for violence. Even in America, you can and will be jailed if you incite immediate or future violence which means these people would be arrested in your country, too. So, again, inaccurate.
    Saudi Arabia's policy on homosexuals is also their own business, but it doesn't make it right. Overall, it is quite clear that UK's violation of its citizens individual rights goes above and beyond "incitement of violence". Count dankula didn't incite violence, and neither did countless people that got arrested for posting on social media for things like posting rap lyrics or youtube parodies. Posts on social media can't kill anyone, so yeah - UK government doesn't deserve a yota of respect. It is a disgusting oppressive institution that should be criticized constantly until it changes or is replaced by a suitable alternative.

  20. #60
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,344

    Default Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    You are the one taking the quote out of context here.

    Him defending terrorism there is just your opinion.

    I don't see how what Dankula did is incitement of violence. Nor posting rap lyrics. Again,. those indexes can say that north Korea is the best place in the world, but in reality it certainly won't make it so.

    Its fairly obvious that using same rhetoric could lead to same results. Point is that modern Western left is very regressive and not pragmatic at all.

    Advertising and user content are very related. Also see my above point about questionable legality of Youtube and Facebook jeopardizing their shareholder's interests by removing potentially profitable content due to political bias.

    Saudi Arabia's policy on homosexuals is also their own business, but it doesn't make it right. Overall, it is quite clear that UK's violation of its citizens individual rights goes above and beyond "incitement of violence". Count dankula didn't incite violence, and neither did countless people that got arrested for posting on social media for things like posting rap lyrics or youtube parodies. Posts on social media can't kill anyone, so yeah - UK government doesn't deserve a yota of respect. It is a disgusting oppressive institution that should be criticized constantly until it changes or is replaced by a suitable alternative.
    1. This isn't some quote taken out of context. This is Sargon accompanying a video with a brief description. There's no alternative facts here, Heathie.
    2. Read above. Read the link provide. Repeat until we stop debating this.
    3. Are you seriously using the trial of a person who trained their dog to do the nazi salute 'satirically' as some proof the UK is authoritarian trash? He was in offense to the communication act of 2003, and rightly put on trial. If the judge determines he's guilty Dankula will have to pay a fine. Also, the man stood for political office after the exploitation of this incident. Hardly authoritarian, if you ask me.
    4. The sameness of rhetoric argument shows how little you truly understand any sort of governmental policy. A variety of factors apply on the outcome of any policy implemented. To suggest otherwise is at least misleading.
    5. No, they're not - unless you're on the payroll of some political party and you're trying, through posting in social media, to promote said party. If you're just a concerned citizen, I can't see the reason you'd bring up a commercial dispute.
    6. The mental gymnastics required to compare Saudi Arabia to the United Kingdom is at least of Olympic proportions. I'm not sure if I'd have to congratulate you on this one.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •