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

[Cubo de Sangre]

You're trying to place a starting point deep within the opponent's territory to the exclusion of reasoned agreement over a central term. If you insist on defining de-platforming as censorship then it moves the conversation away from the subject of de-platforming and to the subject of censorship. This is inaccurate at best,

Here's the disconnect. I'm not the one defining. I'm the one citing definitions from public sources.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deplatform

(transitive, formal) To prevent someone from utilizing a platform to express their opinion.

Synonyms[edit]

• censor
• expurgate
• suppress

As I see it, by you working so hard to avoid the obvious you give minor credence to @VivaRevolution's concern (i.e. that the word is so powerful that if it were used instead we'd be talking differently about the practice of removing accounts). There's two perspectives at play, that of the censor and that of the censored. Viva thinks it's dangerous to only view it from the perspective of the censor and you don't. It's fine to disagree. And even though the practice is without a doubt a form of censorship, one can agree something deserves to be censored and not consider it Orwellian to use a different term.

you're going to have to demonstrate, to the contrary of current American constitutional law, that companies operating private forums do not have a speech interest in their platforms.

My position doesn't require that at all.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

This thread is kind of making me laugh, watching people who agree with the phrase platform, basically make the same argument I have that the word being used is loaded.

Honestly it's not clear that you or Cubo really understand what argument you're trying to make, hence the 9 pages of bickering over connotations.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Telecoms would be compared to Roads and Social Media, places to congregate and interact along that road.

Telecoms are infrastructure and often paid for with layered gov't subsidy and protection. you cannot just start a competitive telecom and start digging up the roads or putting in the infrastructure.

Social media compares more to a restaurant or social interaction spot along that road.

So blocking your use of the road is entirely different than blocking your restaurant choice. You can start your own restaurant or platform like HuffPo did if your message is popular. But you cannot go conduct your own business in the restaurant if they don't like it and if they find it adverse to their interests.

But the investment to compete against YouTube would be just as substantial as the cost to launch satellites.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Honestly it's not clear that you or Cubo really understand what argument you're trying to make, hence the 9 pages of bickering over connotations.

And the other side is clear?

What part of my argument is unclear to you?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Ya, you cannot silence speech in the Internet Age. You need look no further than how a site like HuffPo found its audience and managed to grow.

There are certain people who cannot find a platform for their speech. If they try to create it no one will come. It is undesired and unpopular with enough critical mass to be sustainable. But they have learned they can piggyback off others platforms and basically troll with the same garbage that gets no traction on its own platform and game an audience that way.

Its the easiest thing in this day and age to create your own platform and get out your speech if its desired. If its not then you better hope you can piggyback on someone else and that they allow you because they see mutual benefit otherwise you are asking for the platform to allow him to be a parasite. Potentially hurting their platform, costing them advertisers and revenue, etc all to give him one he cannot build himself.

Then how does silencing it accomplish anything?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Honestly it's not clear that you or Cubo really understand what argument you're trying to make, hence the 9 pages of bickering over connotations.

What have you heard me argue so far?

Spoiler: Recap

I've said de-platforming is a form of censorship. I've provided sourced definitions that attest to this fact.

I've not argued that censorship is always bad nor that they've no right to do it.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

And the other side is clear?

What part of my argument is unclear to you?

Why we should be concerned about the conflation you're insisting on. Cubo has already agreed to my (2) above, which states that we can allow some definition of "limiting speech" that includes de-platforming, but that this broader definition doesn't entail any kind of problem with such a limitation.

So what happens next?

What have you heard me argue so far?

Spoiler: Recap

I've said de-platforming is a form of censorship. I've provided sourced definitions that attest to this fact.

I've not argued that censorship is always bad nor that they've no right to do it.

See above. Anticipating Viva's response, I don't believe you two are in agreement on this point, since his OP was clearly meant to establish "de-platform" as a euphemism (i.e. intended to obscure a negative connotation) and you've now backed away from that argument.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Why we should be concerned about the conflation you're insisting on. Cubo has already agreed to my (2) above, which states that we can allow some definition of "limiting speech" that includes de-platforming, but that this broader definition doesn't entail any kind of problem with such a limitation.

So what happens next?



See above. Anticipating Viva's response, I don't believe you two are in agreement on this point, since his OP was clearly meant to establish "de-platform" as a euphemism (ie. intended to obscure a negative connotation) and you've now backed away from that argument.

We discuss the specifics of whether the bar these social media platforms have set for censorship, are in line with American values.

This is the whole conversation I think the social media platforms have been avoiding by using the phrase deplatforming.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

We discuss the specifics of whether the bar these social media platforms have set for censorship, are in line with American values.

Okay, sure. But since your post can now be re-written under unanimous agreement as:

We discuss the specifics of whether the bar these social media platforms have set for the perhaps-literal-but-otherwise-not-concerning limitation of speech, are in line with American values.

...will this new discussion be happening in a different thread?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Okay, sure. But since your post can now be re-written under unanimous agreement as:



...will this new discussion be happening in a different thread?

From the OP:

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.

Looks pretty much like this in different words.

We discuss the specifics of whether the bar these social media platforms have set for censorship, are in line with American values.

This is the whole conversation I think the social media platforms have been avoiding by using the phrase deplatforming.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Okay, sure. But since your post can now be re-written under unanimous agreement as:



...will this new discussion be happening in a different thread?

"perhaps-literal-but-otherwise-not-concerning limitation"

What does this mean?

Didn't you just accuse me of being unclear in my arguments?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

New rule.

• Don't change anyone else's post (i.e. no ftfy)

 

[JDragon]

I would like to bring up a new aspect to the discussion, and that is the audience. So far, this discussion has largely revolved around the sender of the communication. Now, if I am de-platformed as the one who communicates, then the question is whether I still can deliver my message in other means. For example, I have been de-platformed in this thread because I have been separated from my audience. But I still would be free to voice my opinion in the Lounge thread. This is why I think the audience aspect has not sufficiently been discussed yet. You see, whenever we have discussed de-platforming for example in colleges, I think the main problem was not that a speaker has been not allowed the right to speak. I think the problem is that there was an audience who wanted to see the speakers speak, and a third party pushed for them not to be allowed to. Now what does this mean? In my opinion, this means that we always have to consider the audience as well. Because as I said earlier in this thread, I have not been censored. I still was able to deliver my message had I attend it to do so. But I have not been able to access the channels I would have preferred to do so, and I would potentially have been not able to address the audience I had intended to. So this is why of course de-platforming has an effect on speech. It is not the same as censorship, though. But also, de-platforming is a problem when you consider the effect on audiences, not only senders. Maybe this distinction can move the discussion for a little bit.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I would like to bring up a new aspect to the discussion, and that is the audience. So far, this discussion has largely revolved around the sender of the communication. Now, if I am de-platformed as the one who communicates, then the question is whether I still can deliver my message in other means. For example, I have been de-platformed in this thread because I have been separated from my audience. But I still would be free to voice my opinion in the Lounge thread. This is why I think the audience aspect has not sufficiently been discussed yet. You see, whenever we have discussed de-platforming for example in colleges, I think the main problem was not that a speaker has been not allowed the right to speak. I think the problem is that there was an audience who wanted to see the speakers speak, and a third party pushed for them not to be allowed to. Now what does this mean? In my opinion, this means that we always have to consider the audience as well. Because as I said earlier in this flat, I have not been censored. I still was able to deliver my message had I attend it to do so. But I have not been able to access the channels I would have preferred to do so, and I would potentially have been not able to address the audience I had intended to. So this is why of course de-platforming has an effect on speech. It is not the same as censorship, though. But also, de-platforming is a problem when you consider the effect on audiences, not only senders. Maybe this distinction can move the discussion for a little bit.

See, here is another big problem I have with the deplatforming argument. One of the reasons we are given for this, is the group of people offended by the speech.


Why is this position valid at all, when no one is forcing anyone to consume this speech?

Should not their offense be completely disregarded, as they are choosing to subject themselves to that speech?

This is where I get frustrated by the whole conversation as I think it turns into moving goal posts.

Its the offended, it's the advertisers, it's the property of the corporation, it's the need to protect those being bullied, ect.

I think it is a moving goal post.

To be clear I am not accusing you of this.

As to your destinction in having other platforms prevents this from being a total censorship, ok, I can concede it is not a total censorship of one's speech.

Does that make it OK to engage in partial censorship though?

 

[JDragon]

See, here is another big problem I have with the deplatforming argument. One of the reasons we are given for this, is the group of people offended by the speech.


Why is this position valid at all, when no one is forcing anyone to consume this speech?

Well, it depends. If a Nazi is speaking in the middle of my university campus and I would have to make a detour to avoid him while walking around, I am technically not forced to consume the speech, but I am exposed to it against my will. Similar to having e.g. revisionist and Holocaust denialist YouTube recommendations in your feed. You don't have to click, but you also need to consciously avoid it. It is different from my perspective when e.g. there is a private event on university premises. I do not have to go there.

The point is that if consumers (e.g. YouTube users) demand de-platforming, it is a business decision by YouTube to either be the free speech champion and ignore it, or to recognize there is a certain threat of a boycott by a large user group that could be more detrimental to their bottom line than to engage in de-platforming.

Either way: the point I brought up is that this is (or should be) much less about the suppression of the 'sending' of the information, because I think I showed quite clearly that de-platforming cannot be equated to censorship. There still are ways to get the information out, only the channel is affected. However, I think we should focus more on the recipient aspect. There are people who would want to consume that speech even when others don't. So some of those will never consume that speech if channels are switched.

But consider the following: Assume Fox News fires a news anchor to say something racist. They have now engaged in de-platforming. No, they have not engaged in censorship from my understanding. The news anchor goes on to YouTube and does his thing, reaching a smaller crowd than before. There are people who never are on YouTube but watch Fox all day. These consumers will not consume that speech any more. Do you consider that as a problem?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Well, it depends. If a Nazi is speaking in the middle of my university campus and I would have to make a detour to avoid him while walking around, I am technically not forced to consume the speech, but I am exposed to it against my will. Similar to having e.g. revisionist and Holocaust denialist YouTube recommendations in your feed. You don't have to click, but you also need to consciously avoid it. It is different from my perspective when e.g. there is a private event on university premises. I do not have to go there.

The point is that if consumers (e.g. YouTube users) demand de-platforming, it is a business decision by YouTube to either be the free speech champion and ignore it, or to recognize there is a certain threat of a boycott by a large user group that could be more detrimental to their bottom line than to engage in de-platforming.

Either way: the point I brought up is that this is (or should be) much less about the suppression of the 'sending' of the information, because I think I showed quite clearly that de-platforming cannot be equated to censorship. There still are ways to get the information out, only the channel is affected. However, I think we should focus more on the recipient aspect. There are people who would want to consume that speech even when others don't. So some of those will never consume that speech if channels are switched.

But consider the following: Assume Fox News fires a news anchor to say something racist. They have now engaged in de-platforming. No, they have not engaged in censorship from my understanding. The news anchor goes on to YouTube and does his thing, reaching a smaller crowd than before. There are people who never are on YouTube but watch Fox all day. These consumers will not consume that speech any more. Do you consider that as a problem?

The scope of the censorship matters. It also matters that this is your employee. That you don't give a platform to everyone, but only to your employee.

As a technical definition, I do think that is censorship though.

The reason given for the censorship matters not, in deciding if it is censorship.

It only matters in deciding if it is proper to censor.

 

[MikeMcMann]

If you want de-platforming to fall under the umbrella of "limiting speech" then it's going to do so with much less gravitas than free speech limitations as they're typically discussed.

Wordplay isn't going to save you from the distinction that's causing de-platforming to look acceptable to the rest of us.


Also, this is the article I was referring to earlier: The Ignorant Do Not Have a Right to an Audience.

Summary:
1. Mill argued that to suppress the opinions of others is to assume our own infallibility.
2. Mill's Enlightenment conception of human rationality was singular, naive, and optimistic.
3. The media has created a "tyranny of the majority" by endlessly dragging on stupid debates.
4. Free speech is not the same as just access (sound familiar?)
5. Not everyone is entitled to institutional resources for disseminating their ideas.
6. Institutions have a fiduciary responsibility to award access based on the merit of ideas and thinkers.

This should /thread.

People who exist in the extremes and who cannot find an audience otherwise have found that by basically being a parasite on others success and attaching themselves to their platforms they can attract an audience they otherwise would never get.

That audience is drawn to them more because they are trolling the host site and its audience than for the content of their message, which just becomes the tool to do so.

Jones in no way has his speech limited. He can speak any day and every day using the net or other. Saying ya, but he cannot post it on CNN Commentators page or XYZ Social Media where he wants to and therefore 'repression' is just nonsense.

HuffPo proves definitively that you 'speech' in no way requires another's platform even if one might argue another's platform helps one amplify ones speech and attract an audience one otherwise would not.

 

[MikeMcMann]

For the record I do believe that some speakers have been "de-platformed" as a result of a very vocal minority that has mischaracterized the speakers.

But each of those would need to be discussed in turn, separate from the issue of de-platforming which in itself I don't have a problem with.

But even still selective bias by any site as to what content to post and which audience to court should never be described as a curtailing of free speech.

Once we start to define free speech as the 'right of access to any private venue or platform' the word loses all meaning.

Imagine a Conference going on in Sandy Hook that was for 'healing for those affected'. Jones shows up and feels he should also be granted a microphone to offer his version of events which he knows such a brazen act publicized will draw him new supporters. The Conference is not suppressing his free speech by denying him entry of a mic. He is free to stand out front in a public space with a podium and mic and make his speech in protest.

Similarly sherdog banning CT'ers is not denying them free speech. They can see that speech as adverse to their client users and harmful to their growth and remove them. But that does not stop them speaking elsewhere immediately.

 

[MikeMcMann]

But the investment to compete against YouTube would be just as substantial as the cost to launch satellites.

HuffPo and other creative 'speech' sites prove you to be wrong.

You cannot stop that speech. They can and did put out their speech. The audience who desired it found it and supported it. The platform grew.

What you are arguing is that one deserves to canvas the platforms and gain access to the most successful ones instantly no matter the lack of the appeal or desirability of their message.


Question:

If I considered myself a Pundit/Commentator prior to the internet and had access to CNN or other Media platforms briefly, and my message was not one that proved commercially popular and they decided they now longer wanted me to be associated with their platform, and no other Broadcaster give me access, was I just denied my free speech?

Would it be a reasonable argument to put forth that CNN and ALL media who refused to allow me access were curtailing free speech and are organizations who do not practice free speech?

And when 100 more wannabe Commentators say 'hey I want to broadcast my message as well through that platform... give me access' are they also all being denied 'free speech' and do so many being declined prove that these organizations are anti free speech?

As I can guarantee you that prior to the internet there were all sorts of people who wanted access to those platforms (still do) so they could go on air and opine their views and try to gain an audience.

So every single time a Commentator is released or not renewed by a major broadcaster and that Commentator loses access to the viewing audience has free speech been impinged.

 

[MikeMcMann]

We discuss the specifics of whether the bar these social media platforms have set for censorship, are in line with American values.

This is the whole conversation I think the social media platforms have been avoiding by using the phrase deplatforming.

American Values broadly would not accept your definition of censorship as attached to de-platforming.

American Values broadly support the idea of private businesses being able to select their clientele, providers and content.

You are creating a "whole conversation" based on your very distorted view of what American values are and then overlaying that wrongly on society.