But ... I can't escape the clouds on the horizon and have to be that fucking annoying dude in rent sackcloth with a scraggly beard standing on a soapbox being ignored by passerbys because of the smell.
But ... I can't escape the clouds on the horizon and have to be that fucking annoying dude in rent sackcloth with a scraggly beard standing on a soapbox being ignored by passerbys because of the smell.
Queshank
Yeah I agree things are precarious but I think the chaos is necessary and part and parcel of any big societal shifts. I ultimately welcome it, with optimism, but in the short term an increase in caution is probably smart.
But ... I can't escape the clouds on the horizon and have to be that fucking annoying dude in rent sackcloth with a scraggly beard standing on a soapbox being ignored by passerbys because of the smell.
Queshank
Yeah I agree things are precarious but I think the chaos is necessary and part and parcel of any big societal shifts. I ultimately welcome it, with optimism, but in the short term an increase in caution is probably smart.
Post "chaos" what you're going to see is an increase and centralization of federal power and an increase in thought and speech control. And for the life of me I cannot figure out why you welcome it.
Yeah I agree things are precarious but I think the chaos is necessary and part and parcel of any big societal shifts. I ultimately welcome it, with optimism, but in the short term an increase in caution is probably smart.
Post "chaos" what you're going to see is an increase and centralization of federal power and an increase in thought and speech control. And for the life of me I cannot figure out why you welcome it.
Queshank
I'd have to see more details about what you are thinking of regarding the expansion of federal power but regarding thought and speech control, I don't have a problem with individuals and private companies making decisions about what is appropriate on their own platforms. In fact, I think it is necessary and an integral part of the argument for laissez faire.
Remember how I used to say that the market erodes racism and prejudice (thus making us better over the long term) by acting on our self interest. Racist businesses lose business to those who aren't racist.. and all that jazz. There's been a few examples given of companies resisting Jim Crow, with the policy ultimately forced on them by the state.
I have defended the principle of free association as it concerns businesses refusing to serve certain communities (bake the cake, etc) and this argument about self interest making us better was always lurking there in the background.
Well, what kind of defender of laissez faire would I be if I did not praise the modern day example? If civil society (us, in our private actions and associations) does not fill the gap in providing some baseline idea of decency, then the state will and many of us will come to cheer it in doing so.
I oppose any hint of violation of free speech rights. But I don't think anyone has a right to a platform. No one is obligated to publish content they don't agree with.
Post "chaos" what you're going to see is an increase and centralization of federal power and an increase in thought and speech control. And for the life of me I cannot figure out why you welcome it.
Queshank
I'd have to see more details about what you are thinking of regarding the expansion of federal power but regarding thought and speech control, I don't have a problem with individuals and private companies making decisions about what is appropriate on their own platforms. In fact, I think it is necessary and an integral part of the argument for laissez faire.
Remember how I used to say that the market erodes racism and prejudice (thus making us better over the long term) by acting on our self interest. Racist businesses lose business, and all that. There's been a few examples given of companies resisting Jim Crow, but having the policy forced on them by the state.
In the defense of free association as it concerns businesses refusing to serve certain communities (bake the cake, etc) this argument about self interest making us better was always lurking.
Well, what kind of defender of laissez faire would I be if I didn't not praise the the modern day equivalent? If civil society (us, in our private actions and associations) does not fill the gap in providing some baseline idea of decency, then the state will and many will cheer it.
I oppose any hint of violation of free speech rights. But I don't think anyone has a right to a platform. No one is obligated to publish content they don't agree with.
You're not seeing the market "erode" racism and prejudice. You're seeing irrational hysteria in the nature of witch burnings and the Spanish Inquisition. This is I think our differing positions on this.
I don't know what you mean about publishers being obligated to "publish" content they don't agree with.
Are you suggesting facebook, youtube and twitter are "publishers?" Because I would disagree. Vehemently.
I would also point to the many, many examples I've given .. often directly to you in our PM conversations ... in the past few years that point to governments being the source of this "deplatforming" push. Not "the market."
I'd have to see more details about what you are thinking of regarding the expansion of federal power but regarding thought and speech control, I don't have a problem with individuals and private companies making decisions about what is appropriate on their own platforms. In fact, I think it is necessary and an integral part of the argument for laissez faire.
Remember how I used to say that the market erodes racism and prejudice (thus making us better over the long term) by acting on our self interest. Racist businesses lose business, and all that. There's been a few examples given of companies resisting Jim Crow, but having the policy forced on them by the state.
In the defense of free association as it concerns businesses refusing to serve certain communities (bake the cake, etc) this argument about self interest making us better was always lurking.
Well, what kind of defender of laissez faire would I be if I didn't not praise the the modern day equivalent? If civil society (us, in our private actions and associations) does not fill the gap in providing some baseline idea of decency, then the state will and many will cheer it.
I oppose any hint of violation of free speech rights. But I don't think anyone has a right to a platform. No one is obligated to publish content they don't agree with.
You're not seeing the market "erode" racism and prejudice. You're seeing irrational hysteria in the nature of witch burnings and the Spanish Inquisition. This is I think our differing positions on this.
I don't know what you mean about publishers being obligated to "publish" content they don't agree with.
Are you suggesting facebook, youtube and twitter are "publishers?" Because I would disagree. Vehemently.
I would also point to the many, many examples I've given .. often directly to you in our PM conversations ... in the past few years that point to governments being the source of this "deplatforming" push. Not "the market."
Queshank
I guess this is one of the big things we disagree on. Yes, I consider those platforms publishers.
Maybe I have lost track of the narrative but the de-platforming that we are seeing now is a product of private companies pulling their ad dollars, right? How is the government helping direct this?
I don't think this is irrational hysteria. Hate is being weaponized. It is leading to tragedies in the meat space, whether it is because of white supremacist- great replacement rhetoric or its kissing cousin, the incel movement. The rise to power of the far right in Europe is one of the stories of the decade, right? Hateful rhetoric online is a part of that story.
I don't see a problem with people refusing to publish that kind of stuff. Either we do it, or the state will, right?
You're not seeing the market "erode" racism and prejudice. You're seeing irrational hysteria in the nature of witch burnings and the Spanish Inquisition. This is I think our differing positions on this.
I don't know what you mean about publishers being obligated to "publish" content they don't agree with.
Are you suggesting facebook, youtube and twitter are "publishers?" Because I would disagree. Vehemently.
I would also point to the many, many examples I've given .. often directly to you in our PM conversations ... in the past few years that point to governments being the source of this "deplatforming" push. Not "the market."
Queshank
I guess this is one of the big things we disagree on. Yes, I consider those platforms publishers.
Maybe I have lost track of the narrative but the de-platforming that we are seeing now is a product of private companies pulling their ad dollars, right? How is the government helping direct this?
I don't think this is irrational hysteria. Hate is being weaponized. It is leading to tragedies in the meat space, whether it is because of white supremacist- great replacement rhetoric or its kissing cousin, the incel movement. The rise to power of the far right in Europe is one of the stories of the decade, right? Hateful rhetoric online is a part of that story.
I don't see a problem with people refusing to publish that kind of stuff. Either we do it, or the state will, right?
We should probably be more careful with our rhetoric. It seems odd to say "they're not platforms, they're publishers" while cheering "de-platforming" pushes. No? Freudian slip?
To call facebook, twitter and youtube publishers is, imo, an ill considered rationalization for justifying government regulation and censorship. People have had to be talked into it. People have had to "evolve" in their thinking to consider it a good idea. You yourself have stated repeatedly in the past few years you've "evolved" in your thinking. This seems like one of those evolutions.
And what started this has parallels with the Spanish Inquisition. Governments persecuting people who don't toe the government line. You are tacitly acknowledging this by pointing to the "rise to power of the far right in Europe." That rise to power was fueled by democratic participation in the electoral process by the citizens of of those countries. There were no coups or revolutions going on. It was people voting out the leaders who had opened their borders against their wishes. Whether you disapprove of their votes and the reasons for their votes is really not a factor if you have a firm ideological underpinning supporting free speech and free thought. I don't approve of their reasoning. But I acknowledge they have as much right to vote their opinions and beliefs as you and I with our open border philosophies do.
And you're right. Governments in Europe that didn't lose to right wing politicians but instead were just wounded were the first to start cracking down on the Internet. Threatening youtube, facebook, et al with enormous fines if they did not take down content those governments didn't approve of. The NetdZG laws I've been bellyaching about since June of 2017 being just the first of these pushes. There your comparison to Jim Crow is spot on. These tech companies are global. They aren't "choosing" to censor content governments disapprove of. They're doing it to preserve their bottom lines. Under threat of government fines and consequences.
Companies like Coke et al boycotting facebook are simply following along. Reading the tea leaves so to speak. It's no coincidence that the companies involved in the boycott are also global. And also no coincidence they started the boycott *after* it became apparent Trump was going to lose in November. You see "Black Lives Matter" as the impetus. I see hedging their bets as the impetus.
Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson Tonight drew a record 4.331 million viewers in the second quarter and 791,000 in the 25-54 demo, making it the number one program in all of cable news among both total viewers and demo for the first time since launch, according to the network and Nielsen Media Research. This comes as Fox News Channel wrapped the second quarter of 2020 with the largest audience in network history in both total day and primetime, Nielsen says.
***
Tucker Carlson Tonight ratings came amid recent pullouts by some key advertisers, including Disney, T-Mobile and Papa Johns, over the host’s polarizing point of view on the Black Lives Matter movement.
I guess this is one of the big things we disagree on. Yes, I consider those platforms publishers.
Maybe I have lost track of the narrative but the de-platforming that we are seeing now is a product of private companies pulling their ad dollars, right? How is the government helping direct this?
I don't think this is irrational hysteria. Hate is being weaponized. It is leading to tragedies in the meat space, whether it is because of white supremacist- great replacement rhetoric or its kissing cousin, the incel movement. The rise to power of the far right in Europe is one of the stories of the decade, right? Hateful rhetoric online is a part of that story.
I don't see a problem with people refusing to publish that kind of stuff. Either we do it, or the state will, right?
We should probably be more careful with our rhetoric. It seems odd to say "they're not platforms, they're publishers" while cheering "de-platforming" pushes. No? Freudian slip?
To call facebook, twitter and youtube publishers is, imo, an ill considered rationalization for justifying government regulation and censorship. People have had to be talked into it. People have had to "evolve" in their thinking to consider it a good idea. You yourself have stated repeatedly in the past few years you've "evolved" in your thinking. This seems like one of those evolutions.
And what started this has parallels with the Spanish Inquisition. Governments persecuting people who don't toe the government line. You are tacitly acknowledging this by pointing to the "rise to power of the far right in Europe." That rise to power was fueled by democratic participation in the electoral process by the citizens of of those countries. There were no coups or revolutions going on. It was people voting out the leaders who had opened their borders against their wishes. Whether you disapprove of their votes and the reasons for their votes is really not a factor if you have a firm ideological underpinning supporting free speech and free thought. I don't approve of their reasoning. But I acknowledge they have as much right to vote their opinions and beliefs as you and I with our open border philosophies do.
And you're right. Governments in Europe that didn't lose to right wing politicians but instead were just wounded were the first to start cracking down on the Internet. Threatening youtube, facebook, et al with enormous fines if they did not take down content those governments didn't approve of. The NetdZG laws I've been bellyaching about since June of 2017 being just the first of these pushes. There your comparison to Jim Crow is spot on. These tech companies are global. They aren't "choosing" to censor content governments disapprove of. They're doing it to preserve their bottom lines. Under threat of government fines and consequences.
Companies like Coke et al boycotting facebook are simply following along. Reading the tea leaves so to speak. It's no coincidence that the companies involved in the boycott are also global. And also no coincidence they started the boycott *after* it became apparent Trump was going to lose in November. You see "Black Lives Matter" as the impetus. I see hedging their bets as the impetus.
Queshank
I believe there is a balance to be struck between tolerating hate speech (the stuff that fills the manifestos of people like Anders Breivik or Patrick Crusius) and censoring controversial ideas, political or otherwise. That's the intent of the NetdZG even if the execution left something to be desired. I'm not an expert or well read on any of that stuff but I do see the problem that they are trying to solve. And I think if we don't get ahead of this thing here in the states, in terms of setting our own norms through civil society, then we ensure that we will get our own version of the German law.
How do I feel about the state penalizing companies for certain speech? I guess it depends on the nature of the speech. Is there an outright call to violence? There are limits to free speech. At some point it is a question of where we want to draw the line and the answer evolves with the times.
In terms of the platform/publisher dichotomy, I would argue these social media platforms are a bit of both. A hybrid. Even platforms should have some minimum decency standards.
Take this recent action on the behalf of Facebook, for an example:
Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson Tonight drew a record 4.331 million viewers in the second quarter and 791,000 in the 25-54 demo, making it the number one program in all of cable news among both total viewers and demo for the first time since launch, according to the network and Nielsen Media Research. This comes as Fox News Channel wrapped the second quarter of 2020 with the largest audience in network history in both total day and primetime, Nielsen says.
***
Tucker Carlson Tonight ratings came amid recent pullouts by some key advertisers, including Disney, T-Mobile and Papa Johns, over the host’s polarizing point of view on the Black Lives Matter movement.
Queshank
Oh I don't doubt there will be some holdouts. But don't forget about the "great replacement." Those dudes holding the tiki torches got it twisted. By their own doctrines and arguments, it is clear, we will replace them.
As a Conservative I have zero issue with Legal immigration and am hard pressed to find anyone that is, open borders and no immigration checks are what most of us have an issue with. I am surprised more that people seem to enjoy confusing the two.
If you were born here in the United States and you're still "unskilled labor" ... you kinda deserve to have to hustle to find a job. If your job is threatened by a Mexican peasant skilled only in being a back for hauling ... you've got bigger problems than immigration.
As a Conservative I have zero issue with Legal immigration and am hard pressed to find anyone that is, open borders and no immigration checks are what most of us have an issue with. I am surprised more that people seem to enjoy confusing the two.
There are oodles of Mexicans (and others) willing to risk their lives to escape poverty and violence. I don't blame them for that. I have a friend that fled the civil war in El Salvador, passed through the States illegally, and was granted asylum at the Canadian border.
But to your point, if the border was, let's say, "eliminated," what does that look like? So, (and I don't want to exaggerate), you basically have the citizens of two nations able to relocate at will, with two different governments in charge, whose authority is only based on geography? I'm not sure how helpful that would be.
Seems like access could be made easier without "opening up completely" (and I'm not sure what that would look like either).
We should probably be more careful with our rhetoric. It seems odd to say "they're not platforms, they're publishers" while cheering "de-platforming" pushes. No? Freudian slip?
To call facebook, twitter and youtube publishers is, imo, an ill considered rationalization for justifying government regulation and censorship. People have had to be talked into it. People have had to "evolve" in their thinking to consider it a good idea. You yourself have stated repeatedly in the past few years you've "evolved" in your thinking. This seems like one of those evolutions.
And what started this has parallels with the Spanish Inquisition. Governments persecuting people who don't toe the government line. You are tacitly acknowledging this by pointing to the "rise to power of the far right in Europe." That rise to power was fueled by democratic participation in the electoral process by the citizens of of those countries. There were no coups or revolutions going on. It was people voting out the leaders who had opened their borders against their wishes. Whether you disapprove of their votes and the reasons for their votes is really not a factor if you have a firm ideological underpinning supporting free speech and free thought. I don't approve of their reasoning. But I acknowledge they have as much right to vote their opinions and beliefs as you and I with our open border philosophies do.
And you're right. Governments in Europe that didn't lose to right wing politicians but instead were just wounded were the first to start cracking down on the Internet. Threatening youtube, facebook, et al with enormous fines if they did not take down content those governments didn't approve of. The NetdZG laws I've been bellyaching about since June of 2017 being just the first of these pushes. There your comparison to Jim Crow is spot on. These tech companies are global. They aren't "choosing" to censor content governments disapprove of. They're doing it to preserve their bottom lines. Under threat of government fines and consequences.
Companies like Coke et al boycotting facebook are simply following along. Reading the tea leaves so to speak. It's no coincidence that the companies involved in the boycott are also global. And also no coincidence they started the boycott *after* it became apparent Trump was going to lose in November. You see "Black Lives Matter" as the impetus. I see hedging their bets as the impetus.
Queshank
I believe there is a balance to be struck between tolerating hate speech (the stuff that fills the manifestos of people like Anders Breivik or Patrick Crusius) and censoring controversial ideas, political or otherwise. That's the intent of the NetdZG even if the execution left something to be desired. I'm not an expert or well read on any of that stuff but I do see the problem that they are trying to solve. And I think if we don't get ahead of this thing here in the states, in terms of setting our own norms through civil society, then we ensure that we will get our own version of the German law.
How do I feel about the state penalizing companies for certain speech? I guess it depends on the nature of the speech. Is there an outright call to violence? There are limits to free speech. At some point it is a question of where we want to draw the line and the answer evolves with the times.
In terms of the platform/publisher dichotomy, I would argue these social media platforms are a bit of both. A hybrid. Even platforms should have some minimum decency standards.
Take this recent action on the behalf of Facebook, for an example:
The problem they're trying to solve is losing elections based on their policy decisions.
Just to be clear. You are rationalizing governments censoring the Internet.
Most of your response is just you trying to justify your selling out the most important and fundamental of liberal concepts. That's exactly what I mean when I say someone has to "evolve" in their thinking to think this is a good idea. They have to "evolve" away from treasuring free speech.
You don't have to do a great deal of research or digging (like I have) the past 4 years ... watching leftist outlets slow walk their readers into rationalizing curtailing free speech and questioning the very purpose of free speech to find these pushes disturbing.
You can just read the wikipedia entry on NetzDG and have enough questions to make you think "Okay ... maybe this isn't such a good idea." When even the UN is expressing alarm about a Western country's crackdown on the Internet ... you gotta be giving yourself pause. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion criticized the planned law as endangering human rights.
Germany. England. Pushes in the United States ... all justifying North Korea and China's information strangleholds.
What happens when Herr Drumpf is in charge of Germany's state apparatus's being put in place and deciding who gets to speak and who doesn't?
I recognize that risk (its why I want to see civil society fill the breach and not the state) but I think its important to also recognize we're navigating between a Charybdis and Scylla. Government censorship is a risk but so is the spread of race based hate, doxxing, threats of violence, swatting, fake news, etc.
Do we really want Twitter and FB to devolve into 4chan?
Somehow we have to balance those risks. I think a civil society response is a potential solution.
I recognize that risk (its why I want to see civil society fill the breach and not the state) but I think its important to also recognize we're navigating between a Charybdis and Scylla. Government censorship is a risk but so is the spread of race based hate, doxxing, threats of violence, swatting, fake news, etc.
Do we really want Twitter and FB to devolve into 4chan?
Somehow we have to balance those risks. I think a civil society response is a potential solution.
A civil society response may indeed be a potential solution. Here's how it looks. "Don't like it? Change the channel." Boom. Done and done.
When people *choose* not to support something because it doesn't make sense to them ... that's how civil society responds organically to cultural highway markers that are no longer relevant to them.
We are not seeing "civil society" respond to the Internet. We are seeing world governments cracking down on global tech companies based on somewhat nebulous criteria. And people rationalizing that as the "civil and responsible" approach is one of the most horrifying examples of pod people thinking I've seen play out in real time.
