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

[spamking]

Has anyone's mind been changed yet?

 

[Higus]

As in do I support it or...? Clearly it's different. In one instance you can still reach the audience and in the other you can't.

Some people will argue that it is a form of censorship, because it could be used to disincentivize a person with a viewpoint from making content while someone with the opposite ideology can continue to be paid for content. Is it censorship? Is it justifiable? Are people entitled to be paid for their content when they go on a platform?
Factors like this show why internet platforms cannot neatly fall under the scope of freedom of speech laws.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Has anyone's mind been changed yet?

I don't think the argument is focused enough. On a literal level, it can just be read as a form of fussbaggery: "Whatever one thinks of deplatforming, the term shouldn't be used, and it should instead be called only 'censorship through denial of a platform.'" But Viva and Cubo seem to want to extend it to a judgment on whether deplatforming is good or bad, but then they don't want to admit that. There isn't a clear enough separation here between these:

1. Deplatforming is bad and either shouldn't be allowed or shouldn't be done even though it's allowed.
2. Deplatforming is, linguistically, the same as censorship regardless of whether you think it's bad always, good always, or sometimes good and sometimes bad.

Cubo is pulling a little motte and bailey between the two (though the motte is still quite weak and penetrable).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

We already established that deplatforming is not suppressing speech and thus not censorship.

Don't know who "we" is. But yes, you've asserted that. In spite of your definition referring to exactly what de-platforming on these sites is (i.e. disallowing publication of certain thoughts, ideas, imagery, etc. on their platform to the point of removing those who don't comply).

to stop or prohibit the publication

Then there's this.

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

• Censorship, the suppression of public communication considered objectionable to the general body of people as determined by a government or media outlet

Notice there's no caveats that the suppression be mainly objectionable by the public, nor that the availability of other outlets disqualifies an act from being censorship. Logically, if the availability of other outlets was a disqualifyer then censorship by non-government entities wouldn't exist. After all, when it comes to media there are always other outlets, including the ability to start one's own.

So yeah, if we can't agree on something this basic then there's no sense in pursuing further discourse here.

Some people will argue that it is a form of censorship, because it could be used to disincentivize a person with a viewpoint from making content while someone with the opposite ideology can continue to be paid for content. Is it censorship? Is it justifiable? Are people entitled to be paid for their content when they go on a platform?
Factors like this show why internet platforms cannot neatly fall under the scope of freedom of speech laws.

Is letting someone express what they want, but not aiding their ability to make money, censorship? I'm not sure. What do you think?

 

[Higus]

Is letting someone express what they want, but not aiding their ability to make money, censorship? I'm not sure. What do you think?

My opinion is that virtual platforms are not in the scope of free speech laws. Demonetization is a form of half-ass censorship, as it can disincentivize certain forms of speech, but it is a tool within the rights of the platform owner to maintain the appearance of a compromise between free speech rights and obligations to shareholders.

 

[Fawlty]

The keystone of Viva's original post still hasn't been adequately addressed. On the democratizing of information:

-----
"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."
-----

Of course, nowadays, it's much easier to have a huge platform, and much harder to censor. Which means that we should be even less worried about deplatforming than we used to be. So, this makes no sense to me.


ed: Very poor form reply-banning McMann here. Very poor form.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

My opinion is that virtual platforms are not in the scope of free speech laws.

That seems more like a fact than your opinion.

Demonetization is a form of half-ass censorship, as it can disincentivize certain forms of speech, but it is a tool within the rights of the platform owner to maintain the appearance of a compromise between free speech rights and obligations to shareholders.

I can see that a little. By choking off revenue there is certainly pressure being applied in an effort to curtail speech.

 

[Fawlty]

Cubo, you've just reply-banned and lost a good contributor in McMann itt and now lost another - me. Your (very, very, very) ironically over-the-top reply ban and censorship is unsuitable for honest dialogue.

@Jack V Savage @Tycho Brah @JDragon @Trotsky @Higus

I'm "boycotting" this thread and I ask you to join me.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Cubo, you've just reply-banned a good contributor in McMann itt and now another - me. Your (very, very, very) ironically over-the-top reply ban and censorship is unsuitable for honest dialogue.

@Jack V Savage @Tycho Brah @JDragon @Trotsky @Higus

I'm "boycotting" this thread and I ask you to join me.

How are you both reply-banned and posting?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Cubo, you've just reply-banned and lost a good contributor in McMann itt and now lost another - me. Your (very, very, very) ironically over-the-top reply ban and censorship is unsuitable for honest dialogue.

@Jack V Savage @Tycho Brah @JDragon @Trotsky @Higus

I'm "boycotting" this thread and I ask you to join me.

I dunno man, there's a decent lessson in rhetoric to be had here, if we can just push through the stubbornness.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You're a few steps behind here boss.

My position is that your argument is easily defeated by simple definitions and the empirical consequences thereof (the same point made by at least 4 others itt).

So far as I can tell we're still waiting for that to be comprehended and responded to. Not really obligated to do much else in a "change my mind" thread.

Without calling it something else, what exactly is the problem with de-platforming?

Lol dude cubo has posted the definition of the word censor, and it literally says the opposite of what you guys are claiming.

Here just in case we forgot.....

cen·sor
/ˈsensər/

noun

1. 1.
   an official who examines material that is about to be released, such as books, movies, news, and art, and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Cubo, you've just reply-banned and lost a good contributor in McMann itt and now lost another - me. Your (very, very, very) ironically over-the-top reply ban and censorship is unsuitable for honest dialogue.

@Jack V Savage @Tycho Brah @JDragon @Trotsky @Higus

I'm "boycotting" this thread and I ask you to join me.

He was rephrasing my argument over and over.

That isn't honest debate.

You did it too earlier in the thread.

At least you stopped when called out on it.

And yes, FYI, that is censorship, and cubo has been very open about that.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The keystone of Viva's original post still hasn't been adequately addressed. On the democratizing of information:

-----
"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."
-----

Of course, nowadays, it's much easier to have a huge platform, and much harder to censor. Which means that we should be even less worried about deplatforming than we used to be. So, this makes no sense to me.


ed: Very poor form reply-banning McMann here. Very poor form.

And if you would have said less worried about censoring, I think we could move this conversation along.

The refusal to call taking someone's platform censorship, is absurd at this point.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Lol dude

That isn't honest debate.

Please let's clean this type of stuff up in here. That goes for everyone, including myself.

If anybody wants to discuss POTWR rules then take it to the lounge or send me a PM.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

And if you would have said less worried about censoring, I think we could move this conversation along.

The refusal to call taking someone's platform censorship, is absurd at this point.

Let it go.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Please let's clean this type of stuff up in here. That goes for everyone, including myself.

If anybody wants to discuss POTWR rules then take it to the lounge or send me a PM.

Damn, I was hoping you did it in the ultimate check mate.

I mean he did agree to your terms and conditions by entering the thread.

I couldn't have asked for a better example to show censorship is great until it happens to you, instead of for you.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Edit

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Lol dude cubo has posted the definition of the word censor, and it literally says the opposite of what you guys are claiming.

Here just in case we forgot.....

cen·sor
/ˈsensər/

noun

1. 1.
   an official who examines material that is about to be released, such as books, movies, news, and art, and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

It doesn't matter though, that's the point you're continually missing. Cubo has already agreed that whatever "limitation of speech" is constituted by de-platforming isn't necessarily one anyone needs to care about, so the euphemism argument is off the table.

If you can answer this question:

Without calling it something else, what exactly is the problem with de-platforming?

That might help get you caught up.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Cubo has already agreed that whatever "limitation of speech" is constituted by de-platforming isn't necessarily one anyone needs to care about, so the euphemism argument is off the table.

I agreed to this.

2. We acknowledge that de-platforming is limiting speech, but not in the BAD First Amendment-y type way that we're all concerned about, and we move on;

This does not mean there is not legitimate concern beyond that.

As for it being a euphemism. De-platform sounds much more agreeable than censor.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euphemism

the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant

Earlier someone may have argued that there's no euphemism taking place because "de-platform" is accurate. It doesn't appear that exempts it.

Slang[edit]
See also: Slang
The use of a term with a softer connotation, though it shares the same meaning. For instance, screwed up is a euphemism for fucked up; hook-up and laid are euphemisms for sexual intercourse.

There is some disagreement over whether certain terms are or are not euphemisms. For example, sometimes the phrase visually impaired is labeled as a politically correct euphemism for blind or a blind person. However, visual impairment can be a broader term, including, for example, people who have partial sight in one eye, those with uncorrectable mild to moderate poor vision, or even those who wear glasses, groups that would be excluded by the word blind.

I'll note the objection is that the euphemism "visually impaired" is the term by definition refers to a group broader than what it's being substituted for. Meaning not all visually impaired are blind. Recalling our Venn diagrams, "de-platform" is entirely within the realm of "censor", so that argument doesn't apply. All de-platforming is censorship.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I agreed to this.

This does not mean there is not legitimate concern beyond that.

Concern which is not captured by the OP and has yet to be demonstrated despite numerous requests.

As for it being a euphemism. De-platform sounds much more agreeable than censor.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euphemism

Earlier someone may have argued that there's no euphemism taking place because "de-platform" is accurate. It doesn't appear that exempts it.

I'll note the objection is that the euphemism "visually impaired" is the term by definition refers to a group broader than what it's being substituted for. Meaning not all visually impaired are blind. Recalling our Venn diagrams, "de-platform" is entirely within the realm of "censor", so that argument doesn't apply. All de-platforming is censorship.

"De-platform" is narrower than the term you suggest it's being substituted for, and can't be used as a euphemism if it's not being substituted for anything concerning.

Care to answer my question to Viva, or will you two continue to avoid making a point? The wall can only handle so much proverbial head-bashing.