Social media censorship roundup

[Undertoad]

Nobody will agree with me but

Imagine being told to stay home and your job and salary would be protected by the government and then the government didn't protect your job or salary

Then imagine that instead government went on a micromanagement spree preventing you from taking a solitary walk in a local park

Then imagine that, locked in at home, all you had to complain about this was social media. Then imagine the government and private industry colluded to make sure your social media group was deleted

You don't have to tax your imagination very hard, it's happening

[Griff]

You're not wrong. People are being financially ruined by this leading to further concentration in big businesses vs small. The small business I work for got a payroll protection loan which will cover the gap in my reduced hours.

[Griff]

Why the open carry threat though?

[Undertoad]

The small business I work for got a payroll protection loan which will cover the gap in my reduced hours.

Imagine the payroll protection plan only covered part of it and then money for the next part was held up in government by a leader who, when asked what she is doing in the meantime, showed off her wildly expensive designer ice cream in her wildly expensive designer freezer

[BigV]

Now imagine that this plan for economic help, developed during a time of crisis, with input from multiple co-equal branches of government with a long history of bitter opposition, satisfied everyone completely, covered all the shortfalls and risks experienced by individuals and businesses, was delivered immediately, and with no friction or burden to anyone now or in the future. Imagine all the people working to put this plan together got everything right the first time.

Imagine there were no problems at all with with the development and delivery of such a plan. You can't, can you? I can't either.

It doesn't tax one's imagination very hard to think that there will be problems, and that the difficulties will be unevenly distributed. It's not taxing at all to imagine that the ones that gain the most attention will be the dramatic ones like comparing some fool's ice cream to some other person's bare cupboard.

There will be problems, or room for improvement, depending on your perspective.

[BigV]

But on the topic of the title of the thread, I find the term "censorship" a bit of a stretch when applied to the actions of non-governmental entities. Especially companies where participation is voluntary, unlike living in our society here (though some will say that's voluntary too, "love it or leave it"). Lots of social media platforms have terms and conditions, including the cellar. Enforcing those terms and conditions, including the deletion of member input ... I can see how the term censorship could come to mind. I just don't think it's the best description. The effect is the same, but the context is different in fundamentally important ways.

Equal respect for the rules, shared understanding of reality (that phrase is awkward to say the least, I'm leaving it in for now, read for emotional impact if necessary), having a debate about the relative importance of competing pressures is the optimal scenario, but some will want to skip that part and get right to the torches and pitchforks.

Again, not evenly distributed and the aggrieved parties are the ones that make more noise than the satisfied ones.

[Undertoad]

There will be problems, or room for improvement, depending on your perspective.

I totally agree

there is no make-it-all-better button

you may apply that same standard to dear leader

[Undertoad]

Censorship applies to everyone

First amendment protection applies to US government

[BigV]

I don't think it's censorship if I can still say it, just not here.

Those people whose groups were deleted, what's to keep them from repeating their message on a different platform?

I have been exercising my imagination to encompass your premise

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Then imagine the government and private industry colluded to make sure your social media group was deleted

(emphasis mine)

and I was overtaxed. I can't do it. What government is colluding with Facebook to delete these groups? Probably not the ice cream lady, and all the other hands on levers of power are hauling in the other direction.

[Undertoad]

Those people whose groups were deleted, what's to keep them from repeating their message on a different platform?

That is not the definition of censorship

When television networks prohibited the display of homosexuality as part of their standards and practices, that was censorship even though one could show it elsewhere

What government is colluding with Facebook to delete these groups?

The groups are removed from Facebook on the instruction of state governments in, so far, three states

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

snip--
The groups are removed from Facebook on the instruction of state governments in, so far, three states

bold claim. Ben Shapiro and Oliver Darcy and Mike Davis think so, and lots of people who flock in the same twitter murmurations. I haven't seen any messages from any state governments saying this is what they did. Have you? Or from Facebook? That Facebook says they've followed instructions from the state government to censor their users?


Just thinkin out loud here for a minute, skip it if you want.

I'll focus on the social media aspect in a minute, but the whole social distancing behavior, stay apart to help reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus, this practice is on I have adopted, as have many many other people. The promotion of this practice has been... what's the word... formalized into a guideline, not a law. But the force of laws has been discussed and applied, (I don't know the names of the laws...:/) like being in a place during an emergency where I don't belong. It's ..."like" trespassing, but that's definitely not the right word. Improperly being in a controlled area during an exceptional time, an accident scene, a crime scene, the beach during a hurricane, you get the idea.

The enforcement of these guidelines is widely accepted in many other situations but this situation is exceptional for a number of reasons, reasons that make it harder to do and harder to see and harder to understand. The risk is diffuse and invisible and delayed. That kind of threat is hard for us humans to perceive. And I have a hard time keeping my vigilance at a high level without the kinds of inputs that normally keep me on my toes. This coronavirus pandemic is not scary when I look out my window and see the sun shining on the trees and grass and birdies and flowers. Why not go out, why not enjoy this pretty spring day? Why not share that enjoyment with others? BZZZZZZZT!

Ah, that's when my intellectual brain remembers what I've been told is the best practice--not gather together out with a bunch of my fellow two legged virus targets.

Promoting this idea, the social distancing requires effort, it's an effort to accomplish, the promotion is a necessary part of the success of the effort.

Governments, *at all levels*, are promoting it. Social media platforms are promoting it.

I think the quality and value of this idea of social distancing, and crucially, the motivation for the guidelines, is what is in dispute between, say, me, and the people saying their right to freely assemble is being abridged. Both sides are looking at the same thing, and seeing different things. I challenge the other side by saying my reasoning, increased chance of not transmitting the virus is more important, they say differently. I would also challenge them by reminding them that there are no rights without responsibilities. All our rights are exercised in a framework, all of them have limits of some kind. We have rules, right?

The value of breaking the rules is kind of proportional to the proportion of those who follow the rules. If traffic is gridlocked, and one guy pulls into the breakdown lane and zooms along at 70 mph, he gets a big benefit. That benefit tapers off pretty quickly when a second guy does it, then five more, then when everybody's doing it, we just have a somewhat wider traffic jam.

I don't have a problem with a social media platform, say Facebook, removing posts that advocate activity that is counterproductive to public health. Enforcing terms and conditions / censorship; potato / tomato.

[BigV]

If I can still say it, I'm not censored. That's just my opinion man.

When does the absence of something become censorship? When I bite my tongue and refrain from saying "Jane, you ignorant slut."? Or when I post something and it's deleted?

What's the difference between abiding by community standards and self censorship? Editing and censorship? Is the enforcement of a site's terms and conditions censorship? What if I want to target a particular group with my ads and that group's not selectable? Have I been censored?

When I don't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, am I being censored?

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's censorship if the rule your breaking is not in place beforehand.

[Undertoad]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

yeah, read it already.

I concede that you're using the word properly in context.

I think you're finessing the conflation of our First amendment and the word censorship.

from your link:

Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.

So censorship is happening. Why should I care? Are you suggesting a law has been broken? I do care about laws. Is someone being harmed?