Social media censorship roundup

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by BigV

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?

Why you should care: because free expression is wildly valuable to a society and defending it is a keystone principle of, at least, the USA

Am I suggesting a law has been broken: no lol

Is someone being harmed: yes; the censored people, the people who wish to read the censored information, and anyone else who may benefit from the content being available

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Why you should care: because free expression is wildly valuable to a society and defending it is a keystone principle of, at least, the USA

Am I suggesting a law has been broken: no lol

Is someone being harmed: yes; the censored people, the people who wish to read the censored information, and anyone else who may benefit from the content being available

I strongly disagree with your position.

Propagation of disinformation is harmful. Censorship of harmful information is helpful.

And now we're back to my point

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?

removing the social media content is what happened.

why it was removed is not clear and is in dispute.

one narrative is fb is doing the bidding of the tyrannical states.

one narrative is fb is enforcing their terms and conditions.

both narratives involve censorship (I'm self censoring my urge to surround that with scare quotes)

How YOU feel about whichever narrative you think is most likely correct is 100% on you; exactly the same for ME.

But we don't agree on what's really behind the takedowns.

[Undertoad]

It appears Mr Darcy was inexact in his wording and we do not have evidence that the states requested takedown. Only that they "communicated"

"Communication" is vague but one state is denying they ASKED for the takedown

Thank you for the correction

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/polit...sts/index.html

Facebook has come under fire as groups organizing anti-stay-at-home protests have popped up all over the platform. Stone said Facebook would take down posts created through the Facebook Events feature that promote events in California, New Jersey and Nebraska. Other Facebook posts, including Facebook groups about the protests, might not be removed.

Alyana Alfaro Post, a spokesperson for New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, told CNN that the governor's office and Facebook had been communicating about the issue but said, "The governor's office did not ask Facebook to remove pages or posts for events promoting lifting the provisions of the governor's stay-at-home order."

[Undertoad]

Propagation of disinformation is harmful. Censorship of harmful information is helpful.

Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?

But we don't agree on what's really behind the takedowns.

You're assuming all my thoughts and beliefs, and then debating with whatever you figure they must be. It's ridiculous, stop it.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?

Totally tail-posting on whatever the debate is here, but "who decides" is a good question, there's not a good answer, and that's where all our problems begin. We can't decide on what to do because we can't decide what's real or not. And there's brain-numbingly stupid examples of this. Exxon knew about global warming 40 years ago, but because they were so good at spreading misinformation, we're still (somehow) arguing about this.

I thought, briefly, that a global pandemic would be a sobering moment for us to all agree on a basic premise, but that's gone out the window. And in typical fashion-- not by direct contradiction but by the "I'm just asking questions, is that a crime?" method, aka muddying the waters. But SOMEBODY has to be a "source" of information. We literally can't survive without information to inform our decisions.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

snip--
You're assuming all my thoughts and beliefs, and then debating with whatever you figure they must be. It's ridiculous, stop it.

Oh! Come and see the censorship inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?

Evidently you did when you censored Henry.

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Evidently you did when you censored Henry.

Yeah, about that...

Toad didn't censor me: I took myself out of the discussion.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?

Which leaves you and Facebook in a difficult situation. I don't believe Facebook ever bothered to address that question until it became glaringly obvious that there reputation (and more important, proftis) was as stake. I believe their guidelines were ad hoc - after the fact - too late.

Did you ever sit down to write out a doctrine or benchmark a structure? A framework to decide what is acceptable verses what is 'yelling fire in a theater'? I don't believe many people in your position do that.

Yes, plans completely break down with first conflict. But the fewer who have plans are more easily able to adapt to changing conditions and unexpected events. Do any good guidelines or examples exist from which one might construct such a framework?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

Did you ever sit down to write out a doctrine or benchmark a structure? A framework to decide what is acceptable verses what is 'yelling fire in a theater'? I don't believe many people in your position do that.

I feel like he has.

There are only THREE rules of The Cellar.

Do not try to break the law using the Cellar.
Do not try to break the Cellar.
Do not be "intolerably irritating".

[Undertoad]

Well if every time I talk, I'm talking on behalf of the Cellar, instead of just conversationally, I'll do my conversational talking elsewhere.

See y'all later

[Griff]

Just put a disclaimer in your byline, I'd hate to catch you chatting on Facebook regularly.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well if every time I talk, I'm talking on behalf of the Cellar, instead of just conversationally, I'll do my conversational talking elsewhere.

See y'all later

Knock it off, you can't take your ball and go home, you are home.
The primary reason I gave up being a mod is people put implied authority to my statements unlike every other swinging dick, and that was a drag.
You don't have that option, until people grasp that you can be told to fuck off like everyone else it's your albatross.

[Flint]

This is stupid. Nobody thinks you're the Cellar.

You've got a strong personality, well-formed opinions, and you put yourself out there to take a lot of heat on difficult positions. That's all you, baby.

We wouldn't have it any other way.

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well if every time I talk, I'm talking on behalf of the Cellar, instead of just conversationally, I'll do my conversational talking elsewhere.

See y'all later

If you took yourself out on my account: you ought to reconsider.