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

[VivaRevolution]

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

That's fine, but I think I am being denied the conversation about whether this is good or bad censorship, by the use of the word platform.

What is the good kind of censorship in political discourse, btw?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

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.

As posted earlier, "de-platforming" is the definition of 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.

Your and the other poster's unwillingness to admit this is evidence of exactly what @VivaRevolution is talking about (i.e. the deliberate use of a term that distracts from the nature of what's taking place). Is there some harm in acknowledging this simple fact?

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

No fallacy on my part. The word means what it means and you're welcome to agree with something being censored, but that agreement doesn't change the facts.

As for the MLK being a criminal, someone can commit crimes and not be considered that. Same as someone can tell some lies and not be considered a liar. Twitter can engage in censorship without being thought of as a censor. Nice try though.

 

[Higus]

No fallacy on my part. The word means what it means and you're welcome to agree with something being censored, but that agreement doesn't change the facts.

The definition of the word isn't the question. Deplatforming is censorship, sure. Does that mean that all forms of censorship are equally bad?

 

[Higus]

That's fine, but I think I am being denied the conversation about whether this is good or bad censorship, by the use of the word platform.

What is the good kind of censorship in political discourse, btw?

Silencing someone looking to incite illegal activities, threats and intimidation, spreading disinformation with the intent to harm, etc.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The definition of the word isn't the question. Deplatforming is censorship, sure. Does that mean that all forms of censorship are equally bad?

Thank you for being an honest debater.

No, all forms of censorship are not equal.

 

[Fawlty]

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.

I explained already why the word "censored" is not in fact accurate at all, and I exposed it as a wavy word used to bend arguments. If anything, the Orwellian usage of words here is the use of "censorship" since it involves doublespeak regarding the conflation of public and private standards, though I wouldn't go that far.

The reminder that it's not a publicly owned space is clearly necessary, so it's good that "platform" reminds people of an object or space that isn't public property.

Lots and lots of people have said "forced" by supporting one or another form of legislation to force FB/YT to host things they don't want to.

 

[Fawlty]

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?

The utility is the infrastructure, and in this case the utility would be the Internet. Very cut and dry.

 

[Fawlty]

Bad faith noted. I'll bow out.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The definition of the word isn't the question. Deplatforming is censorship, sure. Does that mean that all forms of censorship are equally bad?

No, plenty of acceptable censorship.

However I have been given about 20 different reasons for why this censorship is occurring from bullying, to slander, to advertisers.

Slander is Illegal. Of course that should be censored.

Bullying is not illegal. If it is in the context of political speech, I don't think that should be censored.

Advertisers should be afraid of calling for people to be silenced, as much as they are of people being offended. Especially when it comes to political speech.

When you say you are banning someone for misnaming someone, because that is bullying, I am skeptical, because banning them is bullying that person who misnamed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

As posted earlier, "de-platforming" is the definition of censorship.

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

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

You're a little confused here.

suppress

verb
sup·press | \ sə-ˈpres \
suppressed; suppressing; suppresses
Definition of suppress

transitive verb

1: to put down by authority or force : SUBDUE
2: to keep from public knowledge: such as
a: to keep secret
b: to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of
3a: to exclude from consciousness
b: to keep from giving vent to :
4obsolete : to press down
5a: to restrain from a usual course or action
b: to inhibit the growth or development of
6: to inhibit the genetic expression of

None of those clearly apply to deplatforming.

Your and the other poster's unwillingness to admit this is evidence of exactly what @VivaRevolution is talking about (i.e. the deliberate use of a term that distracts from the nature of what's taking place). Is there some harm in acknowledging this simple fact?

Your decision to frame disagreement with the approach of your argument (Fawlty) or with your interpretation of the term (me) as "unwillingness to admit" the truth of your position is unfortunate and reflective of an inability to engage in good faith here.

No fallacy on my part. The word means what it means and you're welcome to agree with something being censored, but that agreement doesn't change the facts.

No, it is a fallacy if your understanding of "suppression" is correct. People oppose censorship because they oppose the gov't telling people what they can or can't say because they support liberal governance. But that's not what deplatforming is. You're trying to get people to apply the negative emotions they have to forcible restriction of speech to a fundamentally different action.

As for the MLK being a criminal, someone can commit crimes and not be considered that.

Someone who commits crimes is a criminal, logically and by definition. But the connotation of the word suggests something other than "someone who was arrested for peacefully protesting injustice."

 

[VivaRevolution]

Silencing someone looking to incite illegal activities, threats and intimidation, spreading disinformation with the intent to harm, etc.

And this is where this all gets very grey.

Alex Jones did engage in slander I think.

But other then that, which one of these did he do?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Silencing someone looking to incite illegal activities, threats and intimidation, spreading disinformation with the intent to harm, etc.

I would say the real issue is that the basis for opposition to censorship doesn't apply to deplatforming. So if you want to frame deplatforming as "censorship," you're lading it with emotional baggage that is not appropriate.

 

[Higus]

And this is where this all gets very grey.

Alex Jones did engage in slander I think.

But other then that, which one of these did he do?

There's a solid argument that he's incited violence (Pizzagate) and harassment (Sandy Hook Parents) with his conspiracy theories

 

[Fawlty]

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.

The use of unambiguously bad things like rape and animal abuse are meant to expose those wavy-gravy objections like "it wouldn't be hard to get worked up about" and force people to address this with respect to the issue here, which is the demand that companies host things they don't want to host, and associate themselves and their advertisers with things they don't want to be associated with, which is their right at their discretion.

You don't understand the word "platform" if that is your response. They are not taking "someone's" platform, they are denying the use of THEIR OWN platform. If we can't get past this critical fact, I don't have a lot of hope for the discussion.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You're a little confused here.



None of those clearly apply to deplatforming.



Your decision to frame disagreement with the approach of your argument (Fawlty) or with your interpretation of the term (me) as "unwillingness to admit" the truth of your position is unfortunate and reflective of an inability to engage in good faith here.



No, it is a fallacy if your understanding of "suppression" is correct. People oppose censorship because they oppose the gov't telling people what they can or can't say because they support liberal governance. But that's not what deplatforming is. You're trying to get people to apply the negative emotions they have to forcible restriction of speech to a fundamentally different action.



Someone who commits crimes is a criminal, logically and by definition. But the connotation of the word suggests something other than "someone who was arrested for peacefully protesting injustice."

Jack, honestly. It's a little hard to accept that you can't atleast concede on some level that this is censorship.

Qualify it however you need to, but it makes it difficult to move the conversation forward.

We are basically stuck here. Whether this is censorship isnt exactly subjective. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is black and white, but your explanations for why this isn't censorship seem very wanting to me.

Perhaps we should ask for you to in as simple terms as possible, to explain again why you think it isn't. Your previous explanation seemed kind of meandering to me, and difficult to respond to as it lacked clarity.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

None of those clearly apply to deplatforming.

2B and 5A look spot-on.

You might next try to argue that since other outlets exist then something isn't being suppressed. That's like saying a state government can't be suppressing something if it's true you can go to another state where you're able to freely engage in the behavior in question.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The use of unambiguously bad things like rape and animal abuse are meant to expose those wavy-gravy objections like "it wouldn't be hard to get worked up about" and force people to address this with respect to the issue here, which is the demand that companies host things they don't want to host, and associate themselves and their advertisers with things they don't want to be associated with, which is their right at their discretion.

You don't understand the word "platform" if that is your response. They are not taking "someone's" platform, they are denying the use of THEIR OWN platform. If we can't get past this critical fact, I don't have a lot of hope for the discussion.

I agree there isn't much hope.

You are demanding this conversation happen on the grounds of the private corporations rights.

I have never framed this conversation as anything but public backlash.

We seem to be having two very different conversations.

 

[BarryDillon]

Jack, honestly. It's a little hard to accept that you can't atleast concede on some level that this is censorship.

Qualify it however you need to, but it makes it difficult to move the conversation forward.

We are basically stuck here. Whether this is censorship isnt exactly subjective. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is black and white, but your explanations for why this isn't censorship seem very wanting to me.

Perhaps we should ask for you to in as simple terms as possible, to explain again why you think it isn't. Your previous explanation seemed kind of meandering to me, and difficult to respond to as it lacked clarity.

If I don't let you scream at guests in my home, is that censorship?

 

[BarryDillon]

2B and 5A look spot-on.

You might next try to argue that since other outlets exist then something isn't being suppressed. That's like saying a state government can't be suppressing something if it's true you can go to another state where you're able to freely engage in the behavior in question.

Except that your entry barrier is much different online, as opposed to having to physically go to another state or location on Earth.

 

[VivaRevolution]

If I don't let you scream at guests in my home, is that censorship?

Yes. It is censorship.

Why wouldn't it be?

You seem to be trying to skip past the idea of whether it is censorship, by qualifying that no sane person would allow it.

Also laws against child porn are censorship. Good law. Good censorship.