Who censors the censors?

Mike Harding · Guru

Who censors the censors?

Izabarack · Guru

When someone breaks the rules put in place by the platform owner, the platform owner has every right to delete the comment or account, as they choose. Just like on this forum. All this talk of censorship if misdirected and demonstrates a lack of understanding of a business right to impose and exercise Terms of Use.

Iza

-- Edited by Izabarack on Monday 11th of January 2021 03:27:30 PM

Whenarewethere · Guru

At our AGM for our block of units, including electing Committee members. We choose what we want to do, but also complying with NSW regulations.

If outsiders want a say on how to run our building they can simply buy a Unit.

No different to being a share holder. One can go to the AGM & have a say. The more shares you have the bigger vote you have.

Tony Bev · Guru

In my opinion

Every single one of us can censor the censors, such as Facebook/Twitter etc, by voting with our feet, and not using their platforms

But...

I for one agree, with censoring any leader, (whoever they may be), who uses their power of office, for their own gains

Whenarewethere · Guru

I have never used facebook or twitter, don't see the point.

Tony LEE · Guru

No different to forum owners deleting posts on the basis that as the publisher, they can be liable for defamatory posts. Even if that was not the case, I am quite happy if they make an exception for trump and his henchmen

bgt · Guru

It's the thin edge of the wedge. Who decides what is deemed inappropriate? I bet there are 100's if not 1000's of abusive, violent or racist comments on Twitter etc. None of which pass Twitters own rules. But they do nothing. Media, all media, is showing it's bias. There was even a move by some to move to a different provider. But in steps Microsoft, Google and Apple and they banned/blocked the other provider. (The name escapes me at the moment). The social platforms hide behind media laws when it suits them. But then act as the new Goebells when they see fit. There are left and right wing nutters on Twitter etc. The only solution is to turn them off. Hell kids are suiciding from abuse on these platforms. Where's the outrage and censoring those bullies? It's ok to call it ok when it suits your perspective. But that is very short sighted and dangerous. Censor it? Yes don't read it.

Izabarack · Guru

bgt wrote:
It's the thin edge of the wedge. Who decides what is deemed inappropriate?

No thin edge of the wedge. Platform or forum owners have been locking threads and removing comments for as long as the social media has been available to fools and dunces to use the media for their personal agendas. Plenty of legal precedent has established that platform owners are liable for what they publish. Who decides what is appropriate? The platform owner, on their judgement of risk of legal action against them.

Iza

Tony LEE · Guru

I guess there will be a mass exodus from this and every other forum and organisation and club and stadium audience once some people see the absurdity of complaining about big social media while belonging to any other entity that does the same thing by one means or another.

bgt · Guru

I'm not really that worried about who censors what. As long as they are consistent and apply the rules to everyone.

TheHeaths · Guru

I think a major difference with the Trump ban, and perhaps letting others of a similar nature slide, is due to the reach of the poster.

In Trumps case, with 80+ million followers, he had a wide scope of influence on a group that had a proven penchant for taking his rants literally.

Sometimes, some degree of censorship is warranted, and best for the majority of society.

Mike Harding · Guru

So if, on 20th January 2021, Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon et al ban Joe Biden, Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson... you'll all be happy and in agreeance with those decisions?

You need to think beyond your own prejudices.

Izabarack · Guru

Mike Harding wrote:
So if, on 20th January 2021, Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon et al ban Joe Biden, Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson...

If those listed breach the platform's TOUs, then of course, they should be suspended. Perfectly consistent with the actions already taken against Trump and the Trumpers. No prejudice apparent if acknowledging that platform owners have the legitimate power and responsibility to apply the rules.

Iza

bgt · Guru

The share market has spoken. See today's price on Twitter, Facebook and Google. The market is a reflection of the concerns share holders have on these sorts of actions.

TheHeaths · Guru

Mike Harding wrote:
So if, on 20th January 2021, Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon et al ban Joe Biden, Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson... you'll all be happy and in agreeance with those decisions?
You need to think beyond your own prejudices.

Not a prejudice at all Mike. I expect radical and dangerous content from any view to be monitored and censored if necessary, as there are too many easily lead people of all persuasions. Sure it hinders some discussion for reasonable people, but as with most things, we need to cater/consider the extremes.

There are just somethings that should be stopped from publication and dissemination, otherwise we get a situation where live streaming of shootings such as last years New Zealand massacre become acceptable. In my opinion they are not, and that should also have been censored.

Its unfortunate, but thats the way things appear to be at the present time.

Mike Harding · Guru

TheHeaths wrote:
Not a prejudice at all Mike. I expect radical and dangerous content from any view to be monitored and censored if necessary

Perhaps you would be so good as to define "radical and dangerous content"?

Keep in mind this needs to be a world-wide definition....

Tony Bev · Guru

Mike Harding wrote:
So if, on 20th January 2021, Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon et al ban Joe Biden, Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson... you'll all be happy and in agreeance with those decisions?
You need to think beyond your own prejudices.

Yes I would agree that, Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon et al ban, all elected leaders from their platforms

I have a theory, that elected leaders, were elected to lead, from the front, not from behind a keyboard

They all have access to intelligent people, which should (in theory), assist them to make intelligent decisions

If an elected leader, has made an intelligent decision, for the people of their country, they could proudly stand up, at a press conference, and tell us what this decision is

Without mentioning any names, or political parties
I am of the opinion, that one leader has used (whatever platform), to say blatant lies, without a shred of evidence, that he won an election, which was stolen from him

If that leader had been forced to tell his lies, at a press conference, then some of the free press, may have asked for the evidence of fraudulent voting

I am not really interested what dictators, or leaders from countries without a free press get up to, except not to believe what they say, until proven

TheHeaths · Guru

Mike Harding wrote:
TheHeaths wrote:
Not a prejudice at all Mike. I expect radical and dangerous content from any view to be monitored and censored if necessary
Perhaps you would be so good as to define "radical and dangerous content"?
Keep in mind this needs to be a world-wide definition....

Perhaps extreme would have been better for me to use, rather than radical or dangerous.

As for defining it, that would be a subjective idea, but from my point of view would mean views inferring or promoting actions outside the laws or generally accepted morals, of the country. As I say, a subjective, personal view of the term extreme.

That may not fit with your definition, and thats fine by me. What I can say is the owners of those public fora you have mentioned have set what they consider acceptable. That is their right. If anyone, including you or me, are uneasy with that, then we are free to set up a forum that is open for public discussion, and set the boundaries that we will accept. Cost may be prohibitive, but we have the option.

That is the thing with joining public fora, we accept the terms the owners choose to apply. Their game, their dollars, their rules. Just like the news papers.

I will agree censorship is a dangerous road to go if Governments are involved, but not so much with private enterprise.

-- Edited by TheHeaths on Tuesday 12th of January 2021 05:40:11 PM

Bicyclecamper · Guru

Good proof about censoring is the Christchurch murders. They did censor in the end, but the way everybody is talking today, these sort of things would be allowed back, so their must be a censor there.

bgt · Guru

Owners of forums are legally liable for anything we the users say. That why threads are locked. Twitter, Facebook etc should also be held responsible for comments on their platforms. The problem becomes an issue with the sheer volume of posts. So there is always stuff that will slip through the net. I accept that. But what I object to is double standards. Yes one person should never have been on Twitter considering their position. Why their minders never confiscated the offending device is beyond me. But having said that have standards. Have rules. But don't enforce those rules on an biased basis. YouTube is full of violence. How do you sort that violence? Do we ban all historical violence? Or is there a cut off the that is acceptable? This is all a can of worms. But don't single out just one worm. Pun intended. Be consistent.

TheHeaths · Guru

And therein bgt lies the subjectivity I mentioned in my previous post.

As with most media, private ownership means a necessarily biased view of the world, as preferred views are presented. It is nigh on impossible to get unbiased presentation and unbiased censorship with private, commercial ownership.

Not saying its right, just saying their games, their money, their rules. Like it or not!

All we can do is try to get as much information, from as many sources as possible, to build up the most even view we can. Unfortunately, we also bring our own bias to the table, and that colours what we are inclined to quote, believe and accept.

Aint life wonderful!

Anyway, thats me done with it. Lifes too short, and Im too cynical, to try and change it. Anyway, if I did change it, I wouldnt please everyone. Thats the nature of the beast.

-- Edited by TheHeaths on Tuesday 12th of January 2021 08:08:12 PM

bgt · Guru

Spot on TheHeaths. No changing anything especially from a bunch of old grey nomads like us.

bgt · Guru

It had to happen - www.skynews.com.au/details/_6222322463001

Greg 1 · Guru

Unfortunately, whilst we would all like the notion of free speech, censorship of things that have the real potential to cause physical harm to others needs to be in place. Australia already has censorship laws for things like TV and games programs that could damage young kids. Recent events such as Donald's false claims of election fraud stirring up radical right wing extremists to storm the Congress costing 5 lives is something that he should be prevented from doing again. We would not allow extremist religious views to be expressed to stir up terrorism in our society either, never mind a political leader fomenting an attempted coup. Another poster suggested that other leaders also be banned if Donald is banned. The big difference is those other leaders have not used a social media platform to stir up violence or to constantly promote complete falsehoods with regards a democratic process. They all accept that there is a process within their respective countries, and win or lose, accept the vote of the electorate. Donald has failed in that and has stirred up divisive hate amongst the populace. I am in agreement with him being banned from the media platforms and am glad to see the back of arguably the worst President the US has ever had. Yes he had his good points, but a real leader he was not.

Tony LEE · Guru

Opinion piece in the SMH today https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/this-isn-t-about-free-speech-it-s-about-an-affront-to-democracy-20210112-p56tl9.html

Tony LEE · Guru

"So if, on 20th January 2021, Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon et al ban Joe Biden, Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson... you'll all be happy and in agreeance with those decisions? You need to think beyond your own prejudices."

Bit of a silly statement by any measure.

First give us a sensible scenario that would result in each of those leaders being banned and then we can give you an intelligent answer.

Would be good if you included that Ivermectin clown politician in your list because I can give you my answer straight away.

I see you are still here Mike, despite this forum doing exactly what you say big social media shouldn't. Double standards??

-- Edited by Tony LEE on Wednesday 13th of January 2021 01:45:45 PM

Tony LEE · Guru

No, Twitter is not censoring Donald Trump. Free speech is not guaranteed if it harms others
www.sbs.com.au/news/no-twitter-is-not-censoring-donald-trump-free-speech-is-not-guaranteed-if-it-harms-others

And that is in America so much more restrictive here where there is no guarantee of free speech anyway.

As someone rightly pointed out - you rights end at the point where your fist meets my nose.

Mike Harding · Guru

So the considered opinion is that free speech is perfectly fine providing you agree with me.

Damn! But some of you people have failed to learn from history.

Mike Harding · Guru

An afterthought - just curious:

Who else would you guys censor?

Which other opinions are too radical for you?

What do you think the wise and the good should prevent those less able from being exposed to?

Izabarack · Guru

Mike Harding wrote:
Who else would you guys censor?

Can't answer that because I don't see any censoring going on now. I do see a lot of platform owners moderating in accordance with their Terms of Use that all users of the platform agree to when they sign up. I do not see any difference between the actions of the likes of Twitter, and Google, and Tik Tok, and a list of others more than 40 long, to when a post of a recipe for beef stew is moderated from a Vegan website. Censoring is when someone is "not allowed" to say something, for example. All the nasty lying fools who have had their comments removed from view or their accounts deleted from privately owned social media as still allowed to put out their foul and untruthful dribble on what ever platform will tolerate them. So, unanswerable question because it fails on its first premise.

Iza