Opinion POTWR 2019 Vol 7: Change My Mind That The Word "Platform" Is Orwellian

[Cubo de Sangre]

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE OP BEFORE POSTING.

Greetings War Room Sherbros,

Welcome to the next installment of the Presidential sticky-threads. Here @VivaRevolution has taken a position on the recent push to de-platform some folks with unpopular viewpoints. In the next post he'll lay out his basic perspective on the matter and challenge us to show him the error of his thinking.

Cheers,

Cubo

Spoiler: In the end did Viva change his mind?

Yes!

Here's where the argument starts that altered his stance.

***IMPORTANT***​

These are in addition to normal War Room Rules.

• No insulting the other posters
• Certain words should be avoided to describe someone's position/ideas (stupid, dumb, retarded, etc.)
• Don't refer to groups using demeaning terms such as libtards, conservatards, etc.
• Stay on topic
• Don't change anyone else's post (i.e. no ftfy)
• Humor is fine, but if your post is a joke that doesn't add to the topic then don't post it
• Posts that don't comply will be removed and the poster may be issued a reply ban
• All questions over deleted posts and reply bans please direct privately to @Cubo de Sangre

***This is an ongoing series of sticky-threads that will take on various topics in varying ways. If you're interested in leading a discussion on something please take a look at this thread and then send me a PM with your ideas.

POTWR 2019 Vol 1: Shots Fired! Examining Police Shootings In America
POTWR 2019 Vol 2: Happy Happy Joy Joy
POTWR 2019 Vol 3: Examining Opioid Addiction In America
POTWR 2019 Vol 4: Repeal Or Respect the 2nd Amendment?
POTWR 2019 Vol 5: Based On Known Facts, Would You Remove Trump From Office?
POTWR 2019 Vol 6: Internet Security Basics

 

[VivaRevolution]

There has been allot of talk about de-platforming and giving people a platform.

Joe Rogan being the most notorious example.

The statement has been made by many that Joe Rogan shouldn't give Alex Jones a platform.

That it is good that Alex Jones has been de-platformed.

I argue that the word platform is Orwellian. That the word platform is used because if you said speech, no one would support taking someone's ability to have their speech heard.

30 years ago, we would not be having this discussion, because the means to broadcast your speech was very limited.

The internet democratized information.

When someone says we need to take someone's platform, they are saying let's take someone's ability to broadcast their speech, that is needed because technology democratized information.

I get that many people believe certain ideas are dangerous. I too believe that certain ideas are dangerous.

Where we diverge is on the solution to that danger. I do not believe that silencing people is productive, I believe it is the opposite. That driving ideas to the dark corners, is how those ideas fester and grow.

I believe you defeat those ideas by discussing them. By shining a light on those ideas.

I support Alex Jones being sued. I think he should be financially liable for the damage he did with his speech.

I do not believe Jones should be de-platformed. I think that is in violation of our shared liberal values, of open exchange of ideas.

That the word platform is meant to shift the conversation away from the violation of this shared value, and is Orwellian in nature.

Change my mind.

 

[bobgeese]

What happens when you tell a kid not to do something? They go right out and do it.

“Deplatforming” individuals will only guarantee they’ll never go away. Maybe the audience won’t be as big. However, people will search them out.

 

[bobgeese]

PS, it very well may end up with them facing regulations as well.

 

[VivaRevolution]

What happens when you tell a kid not to do something? They go right out and do it.

“Deplatforming” individuals will only guarantee they’ll never go away. Maybe the audience won’t be as big. However, people will search them out.

I think this is one of the key ideas behind silencing people leading to it festering and growing.

Counter culture is a very real thing.

People will be drawn in by the simple value of being counter culture.

When you outlaw something, you give it a certain counter culture currency.

 

[bobgeese]

I think this is one of the key ideas behind silencing people leading to it festering and growing.

Counter culture is a very real thing.

People will be drawn in by the simple value of being counter culture.

When you outlaw something, you give it a certain counter culture currency.

I’m sure we all know people like this.

I know two in a small circle of people that just have to be on the other side of whatever is popular. It’s a weird human trait, but it’s real.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I’m sure we all know people like this.

I know two in a small circle of people that just have to be on the other side of whatever is popular. It’s a weird human trait, but it’s real.

It's a statement of identity. I have this trait to a lesser degree.

 

[JDragon]

I do not believe Jones should be de-platformed. I think that is in violation of our shared liberal values, of open exchange of ideas.

That the word platform is meant to shift the conversation away from the violation of this shared value, and is Orwellian in nature.

Change my mind.

This is pretty obvious to me. When you invite everyone you know to a house party and tell them they can bring friends, eventually someone is going to stink the place up. Do you ask that person to leave or do you tell the other guests to ignore that person? I think both are valid actions. The platform is yours, therefore it is your decision.

For platforms with limited capacities (e.g. colleges, podcasts, etc.), every decision to give someone a platform de-platforms somebody else. Every time I invite someone to speak, someone else loses out as a result of that decision. I believe these limited capacity platforms therefore constantly are forced to make these decisions by nature and there is nothing illiberal about that. People can choose to give self-proclaimed psychotics like Jones airtime or they can choose to do differently.


It may be slightly different when you are talking about dominant technical solutions like social media networks that have virtually unlimited capacity to host and feature someone's texts or speeches.
(Facebook and Twitter). I do recognize there is a problem if these engage in de-platforming. But at the same time, it is still their house, even if it is a big one. They make money from people staying over for the house party. Not allowing them to de-platform people like Jones if they feel it is a valid business decision is essentially forcing them to do business even if it hurts their credibility and bottom line. Quite illiberal imo.

At the same time, even if Twitter and Facebook do not give someone like Jones a platform, there are alternatives readily available: other platforms or an own website. One might say that this does not give him the same exposure, but again, there is nothing inherently illiberal about this in my opinion. Everyone publishing stuff is essentially competing for attention of the public, which is limited and cannot infinitely be divided. If you have a rock festival with one center stage and two smaller side stages, all bands can play the festival, but not everyone can play center stage. And that's perfectly okay.

Edit: the problem I noted is actually not with Facebook/Twitter, but that we allow these private platforms to become so powerful for discussions.

 

[JDragon]

Also, avoiding the word platform = no-platforming

 

[VivaRevolution]

This is pretty obvious to me. When you invite everyone you know to a house party and tell them they can bring friends, eventually someone is going to stink the place up. Do you ask that person to leave or do you tell the other guests to ignore that person? I think both are valid actions. The platform is yours, therefore it is your decision.

For platforms with limited capacities (e.g. colleges, podcasts, etc.), every decision to give someone a platform de-platforms somebody else. Every time I invite someone to speak, someone else loses out as a result of that decision. I believe these limited capacity platforms therefore constantly are forced to make these decisions by nature and there is nothing illiberal about that. People can choose to give self-proclaimed psychotics like Jones airtime or they can choose to do differently.


It may be slightly different when you are talking about dominant technical solutions like social media networks that have virtually unlimited capacity to host and feature someone's texts or speeches.
(Facebook and Twitter). I do recognize there is a problem if these engage in de-platforming. But at the same time, it is still their house, even if it is a big one. They make money from people staying over for the house party. Not allowing them to de-platform people like Jones if they feel it is a valid business decision is essentially forcing them to do business even if it hurts their credibility and bottom line. Quite illiberal imo.

At the same time, even if Twitter and Facebook do not give someone like Jones a platform, there are alternatives readily available: other platforms or an own website. One might say that this does not give him the same exposure, but again, there is nothing inherently illiberal about this in my opinion. Everyone publishing stuff is essentially competing for attention of the public, which is limited and cannot infinitely be divided. If you have a rock festival with one center stage and two smaller side stages, all bands can play the festival, but not everyone can play center stage. And that's perfectly okay.

Edit: the problem I noted is actually not with Facebook/Twitter, but that we allow these private platforms to become so powerful for discussions.

Those seem like reasonable views, even if I disagree.

However, what I think would be bad for business is saying to people you support silencing speech, even really stinky speech.

Hence the need for the Orwellian phrase platform.

You can point to the stinky view, but no one is being forced to listen to that view.

YouTube or Facebooks response should be if you don't like it, don't consume it. We support the shared liberal value of open exchange of ideas, within the bounds of legal activity.

 

[JDragon]

YouTube or Facebooks response should be if you don't like it, don't consume it. We support the shared liberal value of open exchange of ideas, within the bounds of legal activity.

Essentially you are saying these private companies must be politically agnostic / neutral, even if they think it hurts their business and is not in line with what the majority of their bottom-line drivers (advertising partners, users) and employees want. Somehow this sounds more illiberal and Orwellian to me than the state of things.

Nobody is preventing you from building a free speech platform for all. Nobody is preventing the government from creating a public social media platform (I know, I know) that fulfills all neutrality aspects to foster political discussion.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This is pretty obvious to me. When you invite everyone you know to a house party and tell them they can bring friends, eventually someone is going to stink the place up. Do you ask that person to leave or do you tell the other guests to ignore that person? I think both are valid actions. The platform is yours, therefore it is your decision.

For platforms with limited capacities (e.g. colleges, podcasts, etc.), every decision to give someone a platform de-platforms somebody else. Every time I invite someone to speak, someone else loses out as a result of that decision. I believe these limited capacity platforms therefore constantly are forced to make these decisions by nature and there is nothing illiberal about that. People can choose to give self-proclaimed psychotics like Jones airtime or they can choose to do differently.


It may be slightly different when you are talking about dominant technical solutions like social media networks that have virtually unlimited capacity to host and feature someone's texts or speeches.
(Facebook and Twitter). I do recognize there is a problem if these engage in de-platforming. But at the same time, it is still their house, even if it is a big one. They make money from people staying over for the house party. Not allowing them to de-platform people like Jones if they feel it is a valid business decision is essentially forcing them to do business even if it hurts their credibility and bottom line. Quite illiberal imo.

At the same time, even if Twitter and Facebook do not give someone like Jones a platform, there are alternatives readily available: other platforms or an own website. One might say that this does not give him the same exposure, but again, there is nothing inherently illiberal about this in my opinion. Everyone publishing stuff is essentially competing for attention of the public, which is limited and cannot infinitely be divided. If you have a rock festival with one center stage and two smaller side stages, all bands can play the festival, but not everyone can play center stage. And that's perfectly okay.

Edit: the problem I noted is actually not with Facebook/Twitter, but that we allow these private platforms to become so powerful for discussions.

Great post.

Agreed mostly. Of course private companies have this right and I don't wish to take it away. I also believe they shouldn't censor anything themselves and instead leave those decisions to the users. Options to ignore users and filter content lets everyone choose for themselves. Unlike at the house party, it's easy select an ignore feature online. I think that's reasonable and valuable.

In absence of that, what I would do is consider making a public utility option that operates under full protection of the law. If we think of social media as our town squares for social and political dialogue, then it's not right some folks aren't allowed to participate.

Maybe we could setup citizen voting via blockchain technology through it too.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Essentially you are saying these private companies must be politically agnostic / neutral, even if they think it hurts their business and is not in line with what the majority of their bottom-line drivers (advertising partners, users) and employees want. Somehow this sounds more illiberal and Orwellian to me than the state of things.

Nobody is preventing you from building a free speech platform for all. Nobody is preventing the government from creating a public social media platform (I know, I know) that fulfills all neutrality aspects to foster political discussion.

No. I am saying they are lying, and need to be called out on it.

That they use the word platform to avoid responsibility of silencing speech.

It maybe your right to silence speech by removing someone from your property, although utilities can't do that, but that doesn't mean it would be supported by people.

What the word platform is, is mitigating opportunity loss. It is bean counters trying to have there cake and eat it too.

They want to be able to appease their advertisers, and not experience the backlash from the public that supports free speech, a idea we have all been indoctrinated into as a shared value.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That they use the word platform to avoid responsibility of silencing speech.

That's true. Can't say I expect them to use a term with a bad connotation. Instead of "keeping someone down" they're "choosing not to promote". The big problem for that perspective is there's no shortage of capacity. In fact the company's goal is to acquire as many users as possible. They're censoring viewpoints and calling it a community service.

 

[calavera2]

Youtube, Twitter, Facebook also have rights to freedom of speech. Just because You don’t like their decisions doesn’t mean you get to call on the power of the state to enforce your preferences.

De platform is not Orwellian because the platform is not public space. I think this has been pointed out adnauseum.

 

[Neph]

I'll say the thing that the War Room is going to hate the most:

A lot of people are just not capable of handling true 'free speech'. We see time and time again that communities form and despite the abundance of free speech around them they radicalize and become left wing or right wing fanatics.

It feels like the problem is only getting worse, and bizarrely, at a time when speech has been the most free. Never has there been more a time than now that you can shout your ideas from the soapbox of the internet and be heard.

So is free speech at its purist the cure? Right now, it doesn't seem so.

 

[VivaRevolution]

That's true. Can't say I expect them to use a term with a bad connotation. Instead of "keeping someone down" they're "choosing not to promote". The big problem for that perspective is there's no shortage of capacity. In fact the company's goal is to acquire as many users as possible. They're censoring viewpoints and calling it a community service.

The problem with our corporate structure and culture is that it isn't their goal to aquire as many users as possible. It is their goal to raise profits for the next quarter.

Appeasing as many advertisers as possible is more important, than pissing people off to the point they boycott.

That is a different conversation, but I think it is important in understanding the motivation for doing something many would see as short sighted, and self destructive.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Youtube, Twitter, Facebook also have rights to freedom of speech. Just because You don’t like their decisions doesn’t mean you get to call on the power of the state to enforce your preferences.

De platform is not Orwellian because the platform is not public space. I think this has been pointed out adnauseum.

This is why you use the word platform.

It shifts the conversation to the private corporations rights, and away from their responsibility to uphold our shared values, and avoid the backlash and cost of that decision.

As the law stands now, with social media and telecoms not being treated as utilities, those corporations have a legal right to do this.

It doesn't mean they should have no backlash for choosing to silence speech on behalf of people who are not being compelled to consume that speech.

 

[calavera2]

I'll say the thing that the War Room is going to hate the most:

A lot of people are just not capable of handling true 'free speech'. We see time and time again that communities form and despite the abundance of free speech around them they radicalize and become left wing or right wing fanatics.

It feels like the problem is only getting worse, and bizarrely, at a time when speech has been the most free. Never has there been more a time than now that you can shout your ideas from the soapbox of the internet and be heard.

So is free speech at its purist the cure? Right now, it doesn't seem so.

I think it’s also been proven time and again that free speech does not make for good civil discourse or worse yet just plain shiposting. Source: sherdog warroom.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The problem with our corporate structure and culture is that it isn't their goal to aquire as many users as possible. It is their goal to raise profits for the next quarter.

They are selling access to users. Market penetration drives revenue. No different than in print media where circulation greatly influences what an advertiser will pay. It's simply a matter of the ability of advertisers to control the content they're associated with. That should already be pretty advanced since the word is it's all our personal info that allows for the targeted advertising.