Censorship and Cancel Culture

[thanksimout]

Can history itself violate community standards?​

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-hitler

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

The joys of letting computers make decisions, And a culture and many people just looking to be offended.

 

[tvstrip]

In terms of tech companies (and most publicly traded ones) I think for Hitler, anything less than unequivocal condemnation would be considered "unacceptable". PC police are going to take even a neutral depiction as sympathetic or humanizing him. I don't think it matters whether an AI or human makes that choice.

If anything, it's likely that they won't face ANY backlash for being "too harsh" in censoring Hitler, while being even remotely lenient could be a PR nightmare. If anything, the companies will probably take criticism of being harsh on Hitler as a positive.

The question is, does this standard apply to anyone else? There are TONS of other dictators out there who are arguably worse, but they don't nearly get the same treatment.

 

[thanksimout]

I am pro vaccine. I am also anti censorship. These two thoughts do not have to be incompatible. When asking questions causes those who only want to hear the official preapproved narrative to call the questioner a Nazi, we have a problem.

Allowing Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and others to ban those who asked if it was possible the virus was leaked from a lab is incongruent with the first amendment.

Here we see a prime example of slander and calls for censorship not by computer algorithm but by those who refuse diversity of thought.

https://americanfreepress.net/rfk-jr-fights-slander-censorship/

"I also find it troubling that liberals, once the champions of free speech, are now advocating censorship. . . . All these sensible people who were heroes of mine are now behaving as if there is a pandemic exception in the First Amendment. We see leading liberal institutions, media moguls and social media robber barons acting as patronizing, elitist self- appointed “thought police” to protect Americans from dangerous information."

 

[thanksimout]

Compelled Speech

when she talks of child birth, she will refer to “mothers” and “women,” instead of caving to the demands of a very tiny and vocal minority that seeks to force everyone to use their awkward, modern vernacular.

https://americanfreepress.net/women...ld-be-mentioned-when-referring-to-childbirth/

 

[tvstrip]

Compelled Speech

when she talks of child birth, she will refer to “mothers” and “women,” instead of caving to the demands of a very tiny and vocal minority that seeks to force everyone to use their awkward, modern vernacular.

https://americanfreepress.net/women...ld-be-mentioned-when-referring-to-childbirth/

I'm not sure I follow. I think this is getting away from your point of censoring historical facts.

It sounds like the person in the article was just picking a fight. If they just referred to people as mothers/women instead of " challenging the use of the term “birthing people" ", I doubt anyone would have cared. If you refer to a biological female who has given birth to a child as a "woman", I don't think we've reached the point where that is considered transphobic.

Now if that specific person has made it known they prefer a specific pronoun, I don't see why it's so hard to honour that.
@Steve-FreeOnes put out his preferred pronouns, and I don't think anyone forced him to do it. If someone started calling him "her" or "it", etc despite this, I'd say they're just trying to stir shit up, rather than enforcing free speech.

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

One day there will be a vaccination to cure free will.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

The First Amendment of the US Constitution is only related to Government control of speech. Anyone else can ban anyone else's speech on their personal platforms, businesses or homes. I can tell you not to curse in my business and you either stop or I can throw you out. The Government cannot stop you from talking or writing except in certain limited circumstances

 

[thanksimout]

I appreciate the snark with the time to go back to school, clever and kind of funny, made me chuckle.

Yes I do understand how the first amendment works in relationship to the government versus private entity. Too bad my post didn't reflect that.

 

[gmase]

One day there will be a vaccination to cure free will.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

The original article addresses the real issue here: “I believe that no human reviewed my case.” I was under the impression there are methods of appeal which would allow issues like this to be resolved.

The problem is context. There are plenty of Hitler biographies in print, so the name itself is not an issue. Private or public companies cannot blindly take the risk of allowing hate speech on their sites.

The great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that the 1st Amendment would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater. An algorithm has a difficult time differentiating between true and false or history and incitement. Machines are not good at nuance.

 

[gmase]

I am pro vaccine. I am also anti censorship. These two thoughts do not have to be incompatible. When asking questions causes those who only want to hear the official preapproved narrative to call the questioner a Nazi, we have a problem.

Allowing Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and others to ban those who asked if it was possible the virus was leaked from a lab is incongruent with the first amendment.

The issue is that the source of the virus is contentious. It should be a non-partisan question, but it has attracted much baggage over the past year.

Much like climate change, the source is not relevant at this point. Resolving the issue is quite relevant. If your house is on fire, put out the fire first.

Being pro-vaccine, how should the opinions of anti-vaxxers be presented? Is calling a lie a lie censorship or a public good? Treating lies and truth equally is not being balanced.

 

[thanksimout]

Jen Psaki said the Biden administration is “in regular touch” with the platform to ensure correct “narratives” are promoted —

https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/psaki-white-house-in-touch-with-facebook-to-push-true-narratives/


The point is that asking questions about the origin was cause for censorship and de-platforming.

 

[gmase]

Allow lies to go unchallenged and see what happens. Oh wait, we have seen the results.

I have seen a few articles today about the new report from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. No censorship.
https://thehill.com/policy/internat...-covid-19-origins-hones-in-on-lab-leak-theory

 

[thanksimout]

I certainly do not want lies to go unchallenged. A lie should be called out. An opinion should be just that, labeled an opinion not a fact.

Censoring, de-platforming, vilifying, and cancelling people who ask legitimate questions is wrong.

I think overall we are in basic agreement, no matter how unartfully I may have expressed that.