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

[Fawlty]

Thanks.

With something like facebook, is it compelled speech in question or equal opportunity? Allowing something and promoting it aren't the same thing.

Allowing something is part of the terms of service - an agreement between the user and the owner - and government power is and should be very narrow in dictating terms of service.

Equal opportunity based on what though? There is no principle I'm aware of that we owe people equal opportunity to spread their lies or hate by using or profiting from a service, and no principle that platform owners should be obligated to waive their discretion and their right to associate. Equal opportunity is enforced based on very narrow criteria like sex, age, race, etc.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Allowing something is part of the terms of service - an agreement between the user and the owner - and government power is and should be very narrow in dictating terms of service.

Equal opportunity based on what though? There is no principle I'm aware of that we owe people equal opportunity to spread their lies or hate by using or profiting from a service, and no principle that platform owners should be obligated to waive their discretion and their right to associate. Equal opportunity is enforced based on very narrow criteria like sex, age, race, etc.

Equal opportunity to participate. Equal opportunity to be supported or ridiculed by those that agree or disagree.

Surely you'll agree that "de-platforming" opinions that don't break the law is (by definition) censorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[1][2][3] Censorship can be conducted by a government[4] private institutions, and corporations.

 

[Fawlty]

Equal opportunity to participate. Equal opportunity to be supported or ridiculed by those that agree or disagree.

Surely you'll agree that "de-platforming" opinions that don't break the law is (by definition) censorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

At the risk of inviting an abuse of the points of comparison:

I own a lot with a soapbox in the middle of it, and I allow people to stand on it and spout pretty much anything they want, while crowds and vendors gather and I take a cut of what they sell.

There's one speaker, an oddity, who always talks about how great it is to think about raping grandmothers and skewering kittens.

While it does lead to a very small boost in profits, the vendors are uneasy with associating with this speaker, and I get a lot of complaints from everyone about his grandmother-raping and kitten-skewering rhetoric. I stick with it because I'm trying not to censor people and it's not hurting my bottom line, but it's attracting a bad element and there's too much drama and tension about the whole thing, and I find the situation to be unpleasant, morally wrong, and untenable. So I "censor" him, by disallowing him from using my soapbox.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

At the risk of inviting an abuse of the points of comparison:

I own a lot with a soapbox in the middle of it, and I allow people to stand on it and spout pretty much anything they want, while crowds and vendors gather and I take a cut of what they sell.

There's one speaker, an oddity, who always talks about how great it is to think about raping grandmothers and skewering kittens.

While it does lead to a very small boost in profits, the vendors are uneasy with associating with this speaker, and I get a lot of complaints from everyone about his grandmother-raping and kitten-skewering rhetoric. I stick with it because I'm trying not to censor people and it's not hurting my bottom line, but it's attracting a bad element and there's too much drama and tension about the whole thing, and I find the situation to be unpleasant, morally wrong, and untenable. So I "censor" him, by disallowing him from using my soapbox.

Justified or not aside, it's censorship. Yes? I'd like to be crystal-clear on this fact as a foundation for the conversation.

 

[Fawlty]

Justified or not aside, it's censorship. Yes? I'd like to be crystal-clear on this fact as a foundation for the conversation.

I'm not going to give you whatever simple thing it is you want, so let's be crystal clear about that.

Censorship does not just have one meaning or context. It has legal meaning, court precedent, and many levels of formal or informal meaning based on both public and private, personal or institutional grounds. Saying something is "censorship" is just as able to mean the teacher forbidding her class to greet her as "Mrs. Fuckface," or the parent skipping ahead through a violent scene in a film when a child is in the room, or a shopkeeper disallowing the display of seven-foot-tall pornographic images on his bulletin board.

While the soapbox owner has arguably "censored" the grandmother-rape-sayer in a way that satisfies a meaning of the word "censorship" by his authority as the soapbox owner, it cannot be equivocated with other forms of the word "censorship" without spiraling into some meaningless haze where everything is infinitely pliable.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm not going to give you whatever simple thing it is you want, so let's be crystal clear about that.

Bad faith noted. I'll bow out.

 

[VivaRevolution]

There's a rich discussion to be had on the issue generally, but the term "platform" is accurate and distinct from other terms. It would naturally occur to anyone discussing the platforms and isn't some kind of trick.

It's true that speech can be limited by private actors as well as the gov't (like all rights, BTW), but the nature of the limitation matters. Not giving someone a platform is not the same as preventing them from saying what they want to say or punishing them for saying it.

Also, I think a lot of people have forgotten *why* liberals value free speech in the first place. The idea was to create a gov't based not on religious authority or birthright or something but on reason and truth. And a gov't that values those things has to create an environment where people are free to tell the truth the best of their ability (obviously error is part of that). And it has to be above the gov't, because authority will often not want people to be able to tell the truth to the best of their ability. There's no right to lie, though. It's only because it's hard to distinguish between honest mistakes and dishonest ones that we have to tolerate lies that don't cause material harm. Even aside from the state vs. private actor issue, just focusing on free-speech values, Jones admittedly says stuff that isn't true (whether it's "entertainment" or "psychosis" or whatever excuse he's making), and thus doesn't deserve attention.



What are you basing this belief on? Seems obviously false to me, but I'll read the studies you're alluding to.

The word platform may be accurate, but so is asking how Democrats are going to pay for a program while when you had control of the government, you ran a trillion dollar deficit. It maybe accurate to ask how you will pay for free college, but it is dishonest when you never ask how to pay for the forever wars.

Just because something is a accurate description, doesn't mean it is honest, and I can name example after example of where the language being used is both accurate and dishonest, as the language forces the conversation to a narrow scope.

As far as studies, I think you have already seen them. Once every few months a story on polling where issue after issue enjoys 70% of public support, showing a more unified country on major issues, then I have seen in my lifetime.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I reject the entire framing of the argument outright.

Forced platforming is compelled speech. The only body subject to compelled speech is the U.S. government as we volunteer to serve it, and as we the people perform its essential functions.

Good reasons to go against this principle include: Enforcing non-discrimination over protected classes in public accommodation.
They do not include: Forcing YouTube and its advertisers to support 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Who said forced?

I have said time and again that if they openly admitted to being the arbitrator of what speech is allowed, and what speech isn't, that their would be public backlash to this. A backlash larger than the whining people who are not being compelled to consume any speech anywhere.

That the word platform is meant to remind you that Facebook or youtube own the platform.

If they used the word censored, which would also be very accurate, people would respond differently.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Allowing something is part of the terms of service - an agreement between the user and the owner - and government power is and should be very narrow in dictating terms of service.

Equal opportunity based on what though? There is no principle I'm aware of that we owe people equal opportunity to spread their lies or hate by using or profiting from a service, and no principle that platform owners should be obligated to waive their discretion and their right to associate. Equal opportunity is enforced based on very narrow criteria like sex, age, race, etc.

So why not this same principle with the telecoms?

Why do we need net nuetrality, but not an electronic bill of rights?

Why should telecoms be a utility, but not social media?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Ha! @Cubo de Sangre my post to fawlty, also brought up the word censor, before I even read your posts.

Great minds do think alike.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I'm not going to give you whatever simple thing it is you want, so let's be crystal clear about that.

Censorship does not just have one meaning or context. It has legal meaning, court precedent, and many levels of formal or informal meaning based on both public and private, personal or institutional grounds. Saying something is "censorship" is just as able to mean the teacher forbidding her class to greet her as "Mrs. Fuckface," or the parent skipping ahead through a violent scene in a film when a child is in the room, or a shopkeeper disallowing the display of seven-foot-tall pornographic images on his bulletin board.

While the soapbox owner has arguably "censored" the grandmother-rape-sayer in a way that satisfies a meaning of the word "censorship" by his authority as the soapbox owner, it cannot be equivocated with other forms of the word "censorship" without spiraling into some meaningless haze where everything is infinitely pliable.

So I think it is absurd that you won't even concede it is censorship, while creating the grounds of rape and kitten murder as the example.

If YouTube and Facebook was censoring pro rape and kitten murder posts, no one would bat an eye. I would still think it is censorship, but it would be hard to get worked up about.

I can give many examples of highly questionable "deplatforming"(let's talk about this verb form of this word). So it isn't as simple as just censoring extreme speech. This had already led to mission creep to extend to bullying.

How do we sherdoggers think of internet "bullying"?

But let's get back to the word deplatforming. Unlike the word platform, this is a completely made up word yes?

This is a verb form of the word platform. Where do you think this made up word came from?

See I think the word deplatforming was used, because even using the phrase "taking someone's platform" is offensive. Hence the made up phrase deplatforming.

 

[luckyshot]

It's truly baffling to me that people find it controversial that a private company gets to set up and maintain its own rules and norms.

I think the people who have trouble with this are the same type of people to yell, "Hey, this is a free country; I get to say whatever I whaaa.....!" as the doorman chucks them out of the bar.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The word platform may be accurate, but so is asking how Democrats are going to pay for a program while when you had control of the government, you ran a trillion dollar deficit. It maybe accurate to ask how you will pay for free college, but it is dishonest when you never ask how to pay for the forever wars.

Just because something is a accurate description, doesn't mean it is honest, and I can name example after example of where the language being used is both accurate and dishonest, as the language forces the conversation to a narrow scope.

"Platform" is accurate and honest. It's more honest to describe a company that provides a platform for speech as providing a platform for speech and to describe such companies disallowing use of that platform as disallowing the use of the platform than it is to describe them as censoring speech. There's no suppression or anything going on.

I suspect your issue is that an honest and accurate description of the issue doesn't produce the emotional result that you'd prefer--that is that you'd *like* dishonest phrasing so people will demand gov't oppression of companies that do not make decisions regarding the use of platforms they've created that you agree with.

As far as studies, I think you have already seen them. Once every few months a story on polling where issue after issue enjoys 70% of public support, showing a more unified country on major issues, then I have seen in my lifetime.

I don't believe you're interpreting that correctly. I've stated many times that the policies of the GOP are not popular, even among their own voters (and that liberal policy preferences do enjoy broad support), but the reason that the country is divided on politics despite being united on policy is that people see politics as a forum for identity assertion. You yourself (like many here) voted against the candidate you agree with more on policy in the 2016 election because you felt that your personal identity would be more strongly affirmed by the election of her opponent. That hatred of intellectuals, minorities, Hollywood, etc. is *used* by politicians to get public support for an unpopular agenda, but politicians can't create it. And the media just rides the wave (people tune in to what they want to see).

 

[VivaRevolution]

"Platform" is accurate and honest. It's more honest to describe a company that provides a platform for speech as providing a platform for speech and to describe such companies disallowing use of that platform as disallowing the use of the platform than it is to describe them as censoring speech. There's no suppression or anything going on.

I suspect your issue is that an honest and accurate description of the issue doesn't produce the emotional result that you'd prefer--that is that you'd *like* dishonest phrasing so people will demand gov't oppression of companies that do not make decisions regarding the use of platforms they've created that you agree with.



I don't believe you're interpreting that correctly. I've stated many times that the policies of the GOP are not popular, even among their own voters (and that liberal policy preferences do enjoy broad support), but the reason that the country is divided on politics despite being united on policy is that people see politics as a forum for identity assertion. You yourself (like many here) voted against the candidate you agree with more on policy in the 2016 election because you felt that your personal identity would be more strongly affirmed by the election of her opponent. That hatred of intellectuals, minorities, Hollywood, etc. is *used* by politicians to get public support for an unpopular agenda, but politicians can't create it. And the media just rides the wave (people tune in to what they want to see).

So here is the main reason I disagree that it is accurately described as censorship.

If I have a Twitter account where I have built up 20k-200k followers.

If I am banned, where is the equivalent platform offered?

I ask the same of Facebook, and YouTube.

Do you think it matters at all that I don't have a Pepsi, coke, RC, and 20 knockoff brands of cola to choose from?

That these platforms have complete market dominance and no equivalent competitors exist to choose from?

 

[Jack V Savage]

So here is the main reason I disagree that it is accurately described as censorship.

If I have a Twitter account where I have built up 20k-200k followers.

If I am banned, where is the equivalent platform offered?

Facebook, personal blog (if you have that many Twitter followers, you'll have a good audience for a blog, too), Instagram, probably more. Not denying that it's an inconvenience in your efforts to be heard, but it's not suppressing your speech, and because of that, it is fundamentally different from censorship, which is why it is appropriate to use different terms. Note no one is saying that you can't criticize any particular instance of deplatforming, just that it's misleading to call it censorship in the process of that criticism.

 

[Higus]

The sad part is watching both parties with selective amnesia as R's are supported by the telecoms, and D's are supported by the social media platforms, and watching them flip positions based on where there funding is coming from.

Telecoms are a utility or needs to be regulated.
Dems, yep.
Reps, muh free market.

Social media is a utility or needs to be regulated.
Dems, muh free market.
Reps, yep.

Part of the flaw of that line of thinking is that there are fewer consumer options for telecoms compared to social media outlets. Telecom regulation is a matter of consumer protection, not speech. If a telecom decides to fuck over its consumers, there may be no other options to provide an essential service. Compare that to Social Media and there are lots of options to choose from, or if someone is inclined, the barrier to entry is negligible in comparison to starting a telecom provider.

 

[Higus]

Regarding the "we should debate ideas instead of censoring them" argument:
Has there ever been an idea that was so stupid or evil that it couldn't find at least a small following?
"Exposing it to sunlight" is a naive solution. The truth is there is no solution to preventing the spread of bad ideas. Knowing this, the owners of the platform need to decide what policy allows them and their shareholders to sleep at night: Host and spread bad ideas in the name of free speech, or push them out and let them fester in the dark.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Part of the flaw of that line of thinking is that there are fewer consumer options for telecoms compared to social media outlets. Telecom regulation is a matter of consumer protection, not speech. If a telecom decides to fuck over its consumers, there may be no other options to provide an essential service. Compare that to Social Media and there are lots of options to choose from, or if someone is inclined, the barrier to entry is negligible in comparison to starting a telecom provider.

Is it different?

You can go get internet on a phone from 6 different carriers.

Saying Instagram or a blog is the same thing as YouTube or Twitter, means that your cell phone internet is also a telecom, and we have many choices.

I personally disagree with that. Having internet at home is very different then having a cell phone, in the same way that YouTube is very different then a blog.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Regarding the "we should debate ideas instead of censoring them" argument:
Has there ever been an idea that was so stupid or evil that it couldn't find at least a small following?
"Exposing it to sunlight" is a naive solution. The truth is there is no solution to preventing the spread of bad ideas. Knowing this, the owners of the platform need to decide what policy allows them and their shareholders to sleep at night: Host and spread bad ideas in the name of free speech, or push them out and let them fester in the dark.

I think things can become more than a small following in the dark.

Where shining a light prevents that.

But I agree with the rest.

 

[Higus]

Equal opportunity to participate. Equal opportunity to be supported or ridiculed by those that agree or disagree.

Surely you'll agree that "de-platforming" opinions that don't break the law is (by definition) censorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

This is a "noncentral" fallacy.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world[URL]https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-worldhttps://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCW...ntral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world[/URL]
(credit to @Jack V Savage)
Just because some censorship has negative connotations does not mean that all forms of censorship share the same connotations.