mosdef is the only one who mentioned such a slope, but sure.
I agree with Keed that giving techbro billionaires and our corporate overlords full power of censorship is bad and is/will be used against progresssives.
I agree the best way to deal with it is to nuke places like twitter/facebook/google and break them up.
We donât live in that kind of world though. Thatâs never going to happen. They can buy politicians for cheap. So knowing that isnât a possibility, I donât know how we win the battle for information. Besides maybe employing all the best PR firms and, get our own charismatic people to counter these assholes. But all the money is on their side. Even the rich who arenât conservative are fine with the side effects of their horseshit.
This is why I listen to audiobooks and stuff now instead of political podcasts. WAAF and the game is over.
2 Likes
It varies by country. You might want to go read all the applicable laws and get back to us with your insights on why the consensus of all these wester governments is incorrect.
Can you even censor a podcast? Arenât podcasts hosted on any server and just use an RSS feed which absolutely tons of apps use? Isnât the only way to censor a podcast is to hit the advertising networks so Casper or Myundies donât advertise for them?
1 Like
Is that what theyâre doing? The laws Iâm (vaguely) familiar with impose requirements on tech companies. Will they cynically try to avoid them? Sure. But the stated intent is to punish social media companies with inadequate controls. Just because they might not punish them enough is a terrible defeatist way to approach regulation.
How does it work in Canada? Joe does a misinformation on his podcast. What then?
Right now? Nothing I donât think. The Canadian law I believe is targeted specifically at attempts to misinform the public for the purpose of interfering with elections. Before COVID, the biggest perceived risk of misinformation was that the dumbest failsons in the world would keep getting elected.
The German law is a bit older and broader I think (because they have long standing prohibitions on Nazi propaganda). The Wikipedia page has a good brief summary of the idea and some notes on the key objections.
Network Enforcement Act - Wikipedia.
There are the usual complaints about freedoms of speech. Valid concerns of course. Also there is the question of efficacy. If the laws endanger constitutional freedoms but are of little impact, that would also be an indicator that change is necessary.
This has to be the future. Democracy and public health, two essential pillars of functioning society that were taken for granted at the turn of the century, are at risk of crumbling. The solution will, in part, be to refine the rules and processes of these kinds of laws against misinformation. Itâs wishful thinking that we can just let misinformation run rampant. To keep the world functioning post internet is going to require these kinds of laws and a bunch of other stuff too. It ainât gonna be easy,
5 Likes
The German law would without question violate the first amendment.
Edit: not the part requiring the removal of illegal speech in 24 hours, the German âillegal speechâ would be legal in the US.
Iâm grunching, but I know that you are smart enough to know that censorship is something done by the government, not private citizens.
Sounds like the first amendment is not ready to deal with Facebook. This doesnât really surprise me and I donât think the constitution or itâs amendments are sacrosanct. Indeed, the fact that amendments exist at all is kind of telling.
Disagree on both counts!
I think that private efforts to regulate and limit speech can appropriately be thought of as censorship.
2 Likes
Well, if you want to change what words mean in English have at it.
However, itâs still not censorship.
Youâre saying they use the term in bad faith?
1 Like
Wrong.
âLook guy, Iâm sick of you whining about censorship this and free speech that. Paramount Pictures is a private company and can hire whoever they want! MGM too, and Mr. Mayer says he doesnât want your kind around here. Hit the bricks, Trumbo!â
It is censorship. However, itâs not a violation of First Amendment rights in the US if a non-governmental entity engages in censorship.
Businesses have a legal right to censor except where constrained by law. Some legal things are immoral, but itâs hard to turn legality and morality into concentric circles.
Whatever you say, Chief.
1 Like
The First Amendment is not the problem with Facebook, the problem is the 1995 law exempting Facebook for defamation from liability for what people post on Facebook. Then Facebook algorithmically promotes the worst shit to boot.
That law should definitely be repealed (and replaced).
2 Likes
From ACLU:
âCensorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are âoffensive,â happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.â
4 Likes
I think a âgood faithâ test for speech that actually worked, which may not be possible, would solve 80% of issues. The problem with disinformation isnât so much that its proponents are fully delusional, itâs that they do not care whether something is actually true. They see speech as a performative nod to their audience. See Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson.