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

[Fawlty]

Cubo, you're committing lots of infractions in your thread.

 

[MikeMcMann]

People self-publish on these platforms. That's the essence of it. Not sure how "prohibit the publication of" fails to apply to a situation where people are being prohibited from publishing (i.e. making something available to the public).

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



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/publication






They are stopping things from being published on their site. They are censoring on their site.

As for the New Yorker, if I'm a columnist and they tell me they won't print a particular piece because they disagree with the content then that is censorship. If it's a matter of limited space and not all ideas can be published (unlike these online platforms) then I'd call that more a matter of being discriminating (of which censorship can be viewed as playing a role).

So I am not a big Twitter or Facebook fan. I prefer traditional media such as CNN, Fox, etc.

Should I be able to self publish on their air time? What about their web properties?

Do you consider it censorship if they say no based on the rules they have in place as a private company?

 

[MikeMcMann]

I 100% support the supreme courts decision to allow KKK marches. I 100% support the right of people to believe the Holocaust is fake.

I don't believe that bad ideas win because they are heard.

Nor do I believe that silencing them will make them go away.

The slippery slope is real.

Alex Jones can go to the same public spaces the KKK can march in and do his thing. Same with holocaust deniers.

You are right in saying you support their free speech to do that.

Do you think CNN or Fox has to allow all of the above air time to voice their positions? If not, why not?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You left out the actual argument and made an empty assertion.

I thought this was supposed to be a more discursive thread, or something.

I left out what didn't matter to my assertion (one that I've supported in numerous posts in this thread). But let's take another look at what I chose not to quote.

It's always seemed clear to me that while you don't need to keep something from ever being said, you also have no obligation to give the speaker a microphone. De-platforming is really just taking the microphone away.

There was a pretty sensible NYT article about this last year that stirred up some commotion, I'm sure it was posted here a couple times too.

What bearing does this first part have on deplatforming being a form of censorship? Censoring doesn't hinge on failing to fulfill an obligation.

This second part doesn't even quote whatever you're referring to and sheds no light on your statement that I disagreed with.

 

[Fawlty]

You left out the actual argument and made an empty assertion.

I thought this was supposed to be a more discursive thread, or something.

I think we're all in a holding pattern here, since the argument from the OP hasn't been fleshed out or advanced, and has hit a lot of snags that a lot of thoughtful people have pointed out (and at generous length). We're still in a fight where arguments against the OP are insisting on the use of context, and not on the nitpicking of words, while the OP and its boosters are still trying to preserve maximum ambiguity to broadly apply terms where the arguments require narrower, more useful definitions and meaningful distinctions.

Until the OP can make a case that the democratization of information makes it necessary to give bad or dangerous ideas equal platform space in the private sector, we're not going to get anywhere, imo.

(and I'll point out, as I predicted, that the interrogation of the term "censorship" was in fact a sign that it would be used to introduce ambiguity when ambiguity is desired)

 

[MikeMcMann]

...
Switching gears a little, do you consider Trump's use of Twitter the domain of the people (as covered under the Freedom of Information Act)?

is there an issue underlying this question that I may or may not be familiar with?



Separately, I think if Trump was not POTUS, Twitter might well deplatform him for the incessesant blatant lying he does and trolling. His POTUS status obviously makes that more difficult and it aids him in drawing a vast audience so I think their self interest to keep him as POTUS is clear but if he was not POTUS and his audience never grew as large I think he could be deplatformed.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Cubo, you're committing lots of infractions in your thread.

Quote 'em.

So I am not a big Twitter or Facebook fan. I prefer traditional media such as CNN, Fox, etc.

Should I be able to self publish on their air time? What about their web properties?

Do you consider it censorship if they say no based on the rules they have in place as a private company?

Traditional outlets have limited space and are tailoring content because that is what they are selling. The platforms in question in this thread have no such constraint. They are designed to give anyone who wants to participate the opportunity. What FB and the like are selling is access to others and the ability to communicate.

As I said in a prior post, picking and choosing viewpoints when space is limited is more a matter of being discriminating. Removing viewpoints for no other reason than not liking what they have to say or how they say it is censorship.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think we're all in a holding pattern here, since the argument from the OP hasn't been fleshed out or advanced, and has hit a lot of snags that a lot of thoughtful people have pointed out (and at generous length). We're still in a fight where arguments against the OP are insisting on the use of context, and not on the nitpicking of words, while the OP and its boosters are still trying to preserve maximum ambiguity to broadly apply terms where the arguments require narrower, more useful definitions and meaningful distinctions.

Until the OP can make a case that the democratization of information makes it necessary to give bad or dangerous ideas equal platform space in the private sector, we're not going to get anywhere, imo.

(and I'll point out, as I predicted, that the interrogation of the term "censorship" was in fact a sign that it would be used to introduce ambiguity when ambiguity is desired)

Acknowledging the basic definition of a key concept isn't an exercise in ambiguity, it's a way to find common ground as a starting point.

 

[JDragon]

Some of my posts in this threads have been deleted. I could post my thoughts elsewhere, but with smaller reach. Getting de-platformed in this very discussion is quite amusing and meta.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

is there an issue underlying this question that I may or may not be familiar with?



Separately, I think if Trump was not POTUS, Twitter might well deplatform him for the incessesant blatant lying he does and trolling. His POTUS status obviously makes that more difficult and it aids him in drawing a vast audience so I think their self interest to keep him as POTUS is clear but if he was not POTUS and his audience never grew as large I think he could be deplatformed.

Maybe. Answer the question and let's find out.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Some of my posts in this threads have been deleted. I could post my thoughts elsewhere, but with smaller reach. Getting de-platformed in this very discussion is quite amusing and meta.

You're not de-platformed, as evidenced by your ability to post this. But you were censored.

 

[JDragon]

@VivaRevolution btw this thread is a great example how the thread works: Try not to think of a green elephant. Instead of attacking the concept of platforms, you should have introduced am alternative framing.

 

[JDragon]

You're not de-platformed, as evidenced by your ability to post this. But you were censored.

Yes, I was de-platformed at a certain point in time with regard to certain statements in response to certain non-value adding, off-topic posts. The fact that the de-platforming was not permanent does not change this.

Btw from my point of view, this is not censorship. It would be if my posts in this thread were to be pre-approved by you. But by posting in this thread, I agreed to the rules you have laid out in the OP, and I was able to post my thoughts initially. It does not mean my posts are not subject to 'legal' review, though.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yes, I was de-platformed at a certain point in time with regard to certain statements in response to certain non-value adding, off-topic posts. The fact that the de-platforming was not permanent does not change this.

Btw from my point of view, this is not censorship. It would be if my posts in this thread were to be pre-approved by you. But by posting in this thread, I agreed to the rules you have laid out in the OP, and I was able to post my thoughts initially. It does not mean my posts are not subject to 'legal' review, though.

You're on the platform right now. De-platformed is being disallowed from participating. You're participating.

In the sense that you are constrained from speaking on any topic you wish or to other posters in any manner you wish that's censorship. I don't see how it being enshrined in written rules changes that.

 

[JDragon]

You're on the platform right now. De-platformed is being disallowed from participating. You're participating.

In the sense that you are constrained from speaking on any topic you wish or to other posters in any manner you wish that's censorship. I don't see how it being enshrined in written rules changes that.

That's a matter of definition. The German constitution states in Article 5 that there is no censorship of the press. This means no pre-publication censorship. Kinda like with freedom of speech: In countries with (pre)censorship, I am not free to voice my opinion. In countries without, I can publish my opinion, but I am not free from legal review and it is possible that I get told not to voice that opinion again or face legal consequences. You can call this review (post-) censorship, my law professors would not have done so, but it can certainly be argued.


Sherdog filters preventing you from writing fah-goht are censorship (though not material imo).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That's a matter of definition. The German constitution states in Article 5 that there is no censorship of the press. This means no pre-publication censorship. Kinda like with freedom of speech: In countries with (pre)censorship, I am not free to voice my opinion. In countries without, I can publish my opinion, but I am not free from legal review and it is possible that I get told not to voice that opinion again or face legal consequences. You can call this review (post-) censorship, my law professors would not have done so, but it can certainly be argued.


Sherdog filters preventing you from writing fah-goht are censorship (though not material imo).

Do we have an official definition of de-platform?

Not sure I see what point you're making with pre/post-censorship.

 

[JDragon]

Do we have an official definition of de-platform?

Not sure I see what point you're making with pre/post-censorship.

My point is that the definition of censorship that is used where I come from relates to pre-publication. Messing with your stuff post-publication is not censorship under that definition, but there are people who see it differently.

Clearer now?

 

[JDragon]

Do we have an official definition of de-platform?

I like this one here:

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/deplatform

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

My point is that the definition of censorship that is used where I come from relates to pre-publication. Messing with your stuff post-publication is not censorship under that definition, but there are people who see it differently.

Clearer now?

Much.

Seems like an odd way to think about it. It's like saying the rules in the OP are censorship but removing posts that violate them isn't.

I like this one here:

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/deplatform

Thanks. That's how I understand it.

 

[JDragon]

Seems like an odd way to think about it. It's like saying the rules in the OP are censorship but removing posts that violate them isn't.

No. Think about the support forum (posts not shown before mod approved): that's censorship.