The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Einherjar86]

isn't it your position that it's not just incentive but rather the 'correct' move as in profits would increase more with censorship than without?

Sorry, I fail to see the distinction here.

I see your position as a sort of fanaticism too though, I see no difference between gay people forcing those that don't agree with their lifestyle (ie gay marriage) to join in and religious people forcing gay people to remain hidden and oppressed.

I'm not arguing for mandating any kind of business in this scenario. I wasn't rampaging through the streets calling for Christian businesses to be shut down unless they renounce their beliefs. I said that I happened to be okay with the decision because I relate to it on an ethical level, but I wasn't advocating instituting some kind of supreme ethics board in charge of overseeing these decisions. But if I say that the Supreme Court's decision doesn't bother me, then I'm a fanatic?

There you go, inconsistently elevating belief when it suites you.

We've already argued about my position on freedom and individual autonomy and what not. You know my position, I'm not being inconsistent here.

To me, you sometimes sound like a blue-blooded fanatic, and the way you put American ideals and institutions up on a pedestal looks to me like some kind of Constitutional religion. Believe me, you'd fit right in over here, but that isn't necessarily a good thing.

I didn't find your explanation to be convincing.

(Edit: in that, I don't just think the right/conservatives are negatively impacted with the secret suppression, but the left are denied the opportunity to come across differeing views which are essential to strengthening your own and also they simply might not like what's happening, considering the true definition of liberalism. It should be said that it's less about the freedom to speak but moreso the freedom to listen and that's being denied just as much.)

From an economic standpoint, why would these social media sites even care whether or not they're "hurting" liberals in the way you describe? Why would they give a flying fuck, as long as they're generating traffic and making money? They may be denying people the opportunity to read opposing views, but you assume that's what people want to read. Call me a cynic, but I think that most people want to read pieces the confirm their preconceived ideas (and I'm not the only one to suggest this). Given this, I don't see why the secrecy makes any difference.

 

[EternalMetal]

I don't value freedom because I don't believe in it.

This is a ridiculous statement. Im sure that you can do some philosophical juggling to justify your stance, but this discussion is contained within the framework of discussing freedom of speech. You like it when certain groups speak out for themselves, yet condemn this same expression when you dont agree with their views. Regressive left much?

We've already argued about my position on freedom and individual autonomy and what not. You know my position, I'm not being inconsistent here.

Oh god, I bet this was interesting. We were born into a world that indoctrinates us with tons of values and societal norms, and are ultimately limited in life based on a variety of factors to which we were born to. Allowing people to be as free as possible is the point; it isnt about believing in some sort of axiomatic freedom or any such philosophical rumination.

From an economic standpoint, why would these social media sites even care whether or not they're "hurting" liberals in the way you describe? Why would they give a flying fuck, as long as they're generating traffic and making money? They may be denying people the opportunity to read opposing views, but you assume that's what people want to read. Call me a cynic, but I think that most people want to read pieces the confirm their preconceived ideas (and I'm not the only one to suggest this). Given this, I don't see why the secrecy makes any difference.

So by this logic, media sites should regulate content that doesnt exactly resonate with a certain subset of people? These sites are a platform, and by design should be non-partisan and free of bias. This reeks so heavily of Orwell's 1984 that I cant help but bring it up. You are basically supporting a secret thought police that filters out opinions that differ from the mainstream norm. People may like their media to confirm their preconceptions, but censoring dissenting opinions to placate the public is fucking bullshit. The world you want is the epitome of what prophetic sci-fi has been warning us about for quite a long time.

I assume that you and I both want the same kind of world, but doing so through censorship is entirely disingenuous and will not make people come together any more readily than it will fuel the hate fire. Modern liberals are attempting to artificially catalyze world peace, but it needs to be a more natural process if it is to ever succeed. This current election is proof that our world is currently experiencing a paradigm shift in communication due to the ubiquitous nature of social media, and censoring people will just create more of a schism rather than a unification of understanding. When has what people want become more important than what people need? The secret censorship is bad because it is inevitably an inaccurate portrayal of opinion, and fuels hatred in those that are deceived and censored.

Also, the media sites arent run by people who are devoid of political or business affiliation. Obviously there will be an influence in one way or another. They get lots of add revenue and donations, which are inevitably partisan. Looking at them like they are a strictly capitalist organizations would be inaccurate. Is censorship really just there to make people happy, or is it because of an agenda to maintain a status-quo?

 

[Talos of Atmora]

This is a ridiculous statement. Im sure that you can do some philosophical juggling to justify your stance

I think the term you're looking for is sophistry.

It's the same kind of argumentation that allows the regressive left mentality to uproot cornerstones of modern society like "due process" with "listen and believe". An echo chamber does that. That's why impartiality is important.

 

[Baroque]

This is why I'm a moderate. the far left bs can be just as bad as the far right bs. I value freedom of speech

 

[Einherjar86]

Jesus Christ, you all need to calm the fuck down.

I'm not condoning or supporting a "secret thought police." I'm simply commenting on what are the completely rational (economically speaking) reasons for censoring information on the internet. I'm not apologizing for it or saying that it's to be lauded. I'm simply making the argument that capitalism is not anathema to censorship. They can, in fact, go hand in hand.

That's all. Go forth and play, children.

 

[EternalMetal]

Jesus Christ, you all need to calm the fuck down.

I'm not condoning or supporting a "secret thought police." I'm simply commenting on what are the completely rational (economically speaking) reasons for censoring information on the internet. I'm not apologizing for it or saying that it's to be lauded. I'm simply making the argument that capitalism is not anathema to censorship. They can, in fact, go hand in hand.

That's all. Go forth and play, children.

Get off your high horse, grandfather PhD. It definitely sounds like you are apologizing for the censor-happy left, when you justify it with 'this is only what people want to read' kind of rhetoric. You admitted yourself that the censorship would serve no purpose from an economic concept in your last post. What sort of "rational reasons" did you even mention?

From what I have seen, these posts are your argument:

I sometimes think it's funny how eager many of you are to disagree with me when you think I'm being a stubborn progressive. I agree that censorship and informational control can be personally (or locally) manipulated, but that doesn't preclude larger structural (read: economic) benefits to regulating access to, or visibility of, information. The discussion here always tends toward "It's the liberal media manufacturing consent again, telling us what to think, etc. etc." And maybe that's part of it; but David Foster Wallace has the right idea too when he emphasizes that media is business. It has to make money, and in order to do that it has to target an audience.

What I find really amusing is the belief that censorship is anathema to capitalism.

A platform like Youtube wont cause posters to lose viewership and subscribers because there are channels with different opinions. Same with Twitter and Facebook. They are too big to be influenced in any manner by an excess of freedom of speech. Maybe you are just overly sick and now apathetic over the 'big brother conspiracy' type shit, but you are even admitting it yourself here that it could be a part of it. Media may be a business, but social media is a different breed. These sites are a platform for users to make their own success/influence, and the platform inevitably would benefit from having people of all types of opinion use it. I cant see any kind of economic advantage to censorship other than from the influence of donations of interest groups. You cant analyze social media like it is the equivalent to CNN, Fox, or any other of the other anachronistic media outlets.

I'm not following why it's important that the censorship is done secretly. Most people don't like to actively know the information they're receiving is being manipulated, and the revelation that it is could potentially have as damaging an effect as not censoring anything. But so far, most people aren't complaining, which I think is telling.

This is insane. You treat people like livestock in an agricultural experiment: as long as everyone isnt complaining, peace and normalcy is achieved. Most peeple also wouldnt like to know that they bought a new phone because of a successful sales pitch, but this doesnt mean they should rightfully remain ignorant to it. The outrage due to dissenting opinions is different from the outrage created from people not being able to be heard. This is the same kind of oppression that the liberal types are ironically trying to fight against. The fact that it is secret turns it into more conspiracy than fact, which is damaging to the credibility of opposition (which makes secrecy very important).

For the most part, younger audiences use Google, Facebook and YouTube, and younger audiences tend to be more liberal. I don't think either site has to promote partisan interests in order to see how censoring could still be an economically beneficial move.

By satiating an uninformed majority? I still dont see how these sites lose out on business because some random person on a random channel is talking about something that could possibly be interpreted as offensive. These sites are all too big for it to be one large circle-jerk of agreement.

I still see no rational justification for censorship, economically beneficial or not.

 

[Einherjar86]

Get off your high horse, grandfather PhD. It definitely sounds like you are apologizing for the censor-happy left, when you justify it with 'this is only what people want to read' kind of rhetoric. You admitted yourself that the censorship would serve no purpose from an economic concept in your last post. What sort of "rational reasons" did you even mention?

Well, I'm not apologizing for it. If you're so inflamed as to not be able to see that, then I'll apologize to you too.

And I'm saying that censorship can serve the interests of a market economy. This isn't a radical or sophistic argument. Certain sites cater to particular audiences and so restrict certain content. I'm not saying that they should or that it's a good thing; I'm just saying that the "rational reason" for censoring certain content is that a site might lose traffic if it didn't. And websites thrives on their traffic numbers.

A platform like Youtube wont cause posters to lose viewership and subscribers because there are channels with different opinions. Same with Twitter and Facebook. They are too big to be influenced in any manner by an excess of freedom of speech. Maybe you are just overly sick and now apathetic over the 'big brother conspiracy' type shit, but you are even admitting it yourself here that it could be a part of it. Media may be a business, but social media is a different breed. These sites are a platform for users to make their own success/influence, and the platform inevitably would benefit from having people of all types of opinion use it. I cant see any kind of economic advantage to censorship other than from the influence of donations of interest groups. You cant analyze social media like it is the equivalent to CNN, Fox, or any other of the other anachronistic media outlets.

I'm not saying that YouTube will block certain users from their channels. I am saying that YouTube might restrict certain channels from showing up due to imposed content restrictions. We've already discussed this - Steven Crowder's site gets blocked due to such restrictions.

I think you're right that social media works differently than television media, but ultimately it does still rely on users and traffic, just like television relies on viewers. If a particular social media platform thinks that it will guarantee a certain, larger audience by limiting the content of a different audience, then it stands to reason that it is economically practical to limit said content. Steven Crowder's YouTube channel certain generates a lot of traffic for YouTube, but probably not as much as the mass of middle and high school students wasting their brains during the school day.

This is insane. You treat people like livestock in an agricultural experiment: as long as everyone isnt complaining, peace and normalcy is achieved. Most peeple also wouldnt like to know that they bought a new phone because of a successful sales pitch, but this doesnt mean they should rightfully remain ignorant to it. The outrage due to dissenting opinions is different from the outrage created from people not being able to be heard. This is the same kind of oppression that the liberal types are ironically trying to fight against. The fact that it is secret turns it into more conspiracy than fact, which is damaging to the credibility of opposition (which makes secrecy very important).

I don't understand what you're complaining about. Please read these words: I don't mind dissenting opinions. It's why I even bother to come to this forum and respond to people like you.

I'm not saying people should remain ignorant or that censorship should occur, or that it's a good thing! That's not my argument at all, and yet you insist that it is because you refuse to believe what I've already told you. None of what I've said has been an apology for censorship.

By satiating an uninformed majority? I still dont see how these sites lose out on business because some random person on a random channel is talking about something that could possibly be interpreted as offensive. These sites are all too big for it to be one large circle-jerk of agreement.

I still see no rational justification for censorship, economically beneficial or not.

In the case of YouTube, it had to do with restriction settings; I assume that if they didn't comply, they would risk losing access to their entire site at public institutions that favored these restrictions, such as schools. This is NOT a declaration or advocacy for censorship. I'm simply saying that it makes perfect sense why YouTube would block certain content so as not to suffer all their content being blocked at certain locations. Does this make sense?

 

[CiG]

I wasn't rampaging through the streets calling for Christian businesses to be shut down unless they renounce their beliefs.

Sure, that would be much too direct for most people that want religiously managed private businesses to be done away with. Instead they sue them in violation of the constitution.

But if I say that the Supreme Court's decision doesn't bother me, then I'm a fanatic?

No, you're a fanatic for the reasons I specifically described previously. Gay lifestyle > freedom of association.

To me, you sometimes sound like a blue-blooded fanatic, and the way you put American ideals and institutions up on a pedestal looks to me like some kind of Constitutional religion. Believe me, you'd fit right in over here, but that isn't necessarily a good thing.

I'd rather fit in over there then say, a socialist or communist country. So I'm okay with that. Not really sure what the overall point is of the rest of this comment.

From an economic standpoint, why would these social media sites even care whether or not they're "hurting" liberals in the way you describe? Why would they give a flying fuck, as long as they're generating traffic and making money? They may be denying people the opportunity to read opposing views, but you assume that's what people want to read. Call me a cynic, but I think that most people want to read pieces the confirm their preconceived ideas (and I'm not the only one to suggest this). Given this, I don't see why the secrecy makes any difference.

If you don't see it you don't see it.

But I've seen no convincing arguments or evidence to suggest that their actions are purely or even partially economic. This is further proven by the fact that Zuckerberg has colluded with government figures in order to make sure criticism of them or their policies is suppressed.

 

[CiG]

I just think censorship of one group is dumb economically because it's merely going to force competition to rise up and fill that void of demand not being met due to that censorship.

The rest of what EM is levelling against Ein is a bit ott in my view, but it's entertaining to read.

 

[Einherjar86]

Look, I've provided the argument. Don't say you don't "see" the argument, because it's here. I'm saying that if a social media platform or website is presented with the possibility that censoring certain content might guarantee more regular traffic, then it makes economic sense to censor that content. It's simple math when it comes to measuring user traffic (and I never use the phrase "simple math").

I'm not saying that this is the only reason for censoring content, and I'm certainly not saying that I think it's a good thing. But I do happen to think that most people are attracted toward confirmation pieces, i.e. articles that confirm their beliefs (by the way, non-leftists have already proposed this theory, it's not some whack-job leftist idea - see Scott Bakker's blog, Three Pound Brain). If people seek confirmation, then it makes perfect economic sense to provide such content.

The reason I'm hammering this home is because, from my perspective, it looks like you are trying to oppose free market capitalist ideals to censorship. This is clearly not the case, and leftists aren't the only ones saying so. Capitalism creates an economic demand for censorship.

EDIT: censorship could definitely create competition and lead to alternative platforms! I'm not denying that; but that does not mean that censorship on one specific site or platform is a bad economic choice, especially if that site/platform attracts a particular political demographic.

I'm saying that the marketplace of ideas inevitably draws its own borders, and this is not necessarily anathema to the demands of the marketplace.

 

[EternalMetal]

Well, I'm not apologizing for it. If you're so inflamed as to not be able to see that, then I'll apologize to you too.

So are you apologizing or not?

And I'm saying that censorship can serve the interests of a market economy. This isn't a radical or sophistic argument. Certain sites cater to particular audiences and so restrict certain content. I'm not saying that they should or that it's a good thing; I'm just saying that the "rational reason" for censoring certain content is that a site might lose traffic if it didn't. And websites thrives on their traffic numbers.

Websites arent platforms. Im ok with websites that promote a typical agenda, and they are in the right to do so. Social media sites however are a blank platform in which to promote content, so im not ok with them censoring their users. I dont give a fuck about what Huffpost says, I think anyone who reads them knows the lens in which they speak.

I'm not saying that YouTube will block certain users from their channels. I am saying that YouTube might restrict certain channels from showing up due to imposed content restrictions. We've already discussed this - Steven Crowder's site gets blocked due to such restrictions.

In the case of YouTube, it had to do with restriction settings; I assume that if they didn't comply, they would risk losing access to their entire site at public institutions that favored these restrictions, such as schools. This is NOT a declaration or advocacy for censorship. I'm simply saying that it makes perfect sense why YouTube would block certain content so as not to suffer all their content being blocked at certain locations. Does this make sense?

Sure, this makes sense, but the problem is where Youtube decides to draw the line. Some users who do not have inappropriate content are being censored and barred from monetization arguably based on their content, which to me is an issue. Though for the most part I would not be opposed to censoring middle and high school students to a certain extent.

I think you're right that social media works differently than television media, but ultimately it does still rely on users and traffic, just like television relies on viewers. If a particular social media platform thinks that it will guarantee a certain, larger audience by limiting the content of a different audience, then it stands to reason that it is economically practical to limit said content. Steven Crowder's YouTube channel certain generates a lot of traffic for YouTube, but probably not as much as the mass of middle and high school students wasting their brains during the school day.

It doesnt matter which one generates more, because Crowder's channel, in addition to the shit kids watch will both generate revenue for Youtube. When it comes to recommended videos I dont care too much. But if they regulate my content past that point, then I am opposed to what they are doing (im not even sure if my search for 'Trump' or 'Hillary' would yield the same search results as yours). The first O'Keefe Veritas video should have been trending a full 24 hours before it was however.

I don't understand what you're complaining about. Please read these words: I don't mind dissenting opinions. It's why I even bother to come to this forum and respond to people like you.

I am opposed to the way in which you are dissecting and making assumptions about the entire human population. You seem to be justifying the censorship of information simply because it makes people more happy with their social media, and that if they see any content that is dissonant with their thoughts they may become upset. I also do not like how you approve of secretly manipulating information to keep people ignorant and justified in their own fantasies. Most people arent complaining, so this is somehow ok? As for you not understanding, maybe re-read the parts of the post im quoting and consider its context? I thought it was clear enough.

I'm not saying people should remain ignorant or that censorship should occur, or that it's a good thing! That's not my argument at all, and yet you insist that it is because you refuse to believe what I've already told you. None of what I've said has been an apology for censorship.

Oh really? You are the one who adamantly holds positions that he has no emotional attachment to, and when it comes into question just goes 'noooo, I am not like that!' It's like trying to gun down a ghost. It would be nice if you actually used your intelligent brain and gave us an analysis of what you think, rather than just stating shit, getting shit for it, and then saying that your opinion lies elsewhere. We get it, capitalists can censor people as well: this isnt exactly new. We saw it with Big Tobacco, and marketing has never been quite the same since. What is new, however, is that politics can be influenced by social media, and we are seeing quite the shit show.

 

[CiG]

@Einherjar86

I agree with you about personal biases. I understand this, we all have biases. I don't read Salon for example. I'm not trying to put forth some strange desire to return to 1950's faux bipartisan objective media, I prefer a world of upfront biases.

Where I disagree is that this censorship doesn't do anything other than suppress the differing views because if you know how social media works (which I assume you do) you know that for example on youtube, you don't come across videos you'd disagree with because you're recommended videos based on what you view. It's been over a year since I've come across a leftist video for example because I don't watch them much anymore, before it was the opposite.

Facebook only reveals content to you via who you have added as a friend so unless you're the magical leftist that has a ideologically diverse friends list (rare) you will see nothing but feminist hashtags and pro-Bernie memes. So the entire premise you've proposed seems faulty to me.

You are not bombarded by content you hate on social media to begin with, so censorship in this case only benefits the sensibilities of the mods that have to wade through content everyday and the biases of the owners and backers.

 

[Einherjar86]

I escalated this conversation with my comparison to the Christian bakery. That was a bad example, for which I apologized. At this point, I've said multiple times that my position is that capitalism and censorship are not anathema, a position that many here seem inclined to deny. That is what I "really think." I've since been accused multiple times of harboring some kind of secret liberal agenda of promoting censorship. This hasn't once been the case.

I'll be the first to, once again, say I apologize for contributing to how this blew out of proportion. I still contend, fervently, that social media is as prone to market pressures as it is to the whims of its liberal overlords, and that censorship on social media answers (at least in part) to market demands. The demographics of social media speak for themselves. I'll agree that political opinion in this country is profoundly shaped by social media, but that doesn't preclude social media from responding to these effects in terms of how to best generate more traffic. If more Facebook users are liberal, for example, then they're probably more prone to visit the site if right-wing stories aren't popping up in their feed, or at least spend more time.

The idea that media censorship (social media and otherwise) can be in accordance with market demands has been the entire point of my posts, and I'm sorry if I drew us off-message. But there, that's what I really think.

 

[CiG]

I've just said that things don't just randomly pop up on your feed to begin with, it all depends on your trends and associations.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

@Einherjar86 If your point to me was merely that there can be a confluence of market direction and media direction, then sure. No contesting from there, I just have qualms over whether it's right or not. If you were under the impression of me accusing you of harboring some surreptitious left-leaning agenda, I wasn't, I don't think you are or were. You're just trying to get to the truth through your own lens like the rest of us.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

Jesus Christ, you all need to calm the fuck down.

I'm not condoning or supporting a "secret thought police." I'm simply commenting on what are the completely rational (economically speaking) reasons for censoring information on the internet. I'm not apologizing for it or saying that it's to be lauded. I'm simply making the argument that capitalism is not anathema to censorship. They can, in fact, go hand in hand.

That's all. Go forth and play, children.

Censorship and capitalism are certainly not antithetical or mutually exclusive to one another. You need only look at the laundry list of autocratic capitalist states throughout history. The only thing I'd say is that it would seem to be within the best interest of your average capitalist system to trend against censorship, as the more the entities within can say, the easier it is to wiggle with the current of the market, and bring in revenue, and thusly prosper. Then again, that's under the presumption we aren't discussing a plutocracy, or that a someone other than the entities within the capitalist system are the censors.

 

[Einherjar86]

I've just said that things don't just randomly pop up on your feed to begin with, it all depends on your trends and associations.

Not in the trending feed, though. That's where the censorship was happening, from what I understand.

@Einherjar86 If your point to me was merely that there can be a confluence of market direction and media direction, then sure. No contesting from there, I just have qualms over whether it's right or not. If you were under the impression of me accusing you of harboring some surreptitious left-leaning agenda, I wasn't, I don't think you are or were. You're just trying to get to the truth through your own lens like the rest of us.

I appreciate it, although I don't think anything you said gave me that impression; it was others mainly.

And I think you're right that it may be in a capitalist system's (in an emergent sense) best interests to trend against censorship. I just think it's also the case that the interests of individual companies and/or individuals don't always coincide with the interests of capitalism at large.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

Not in the trending feed, though. That's where the censorship was happening, from what I understand.



I appreciate it, although I don't think anything you said gave me that impression; it was others mainly.

And I think you're right that it may be in a capitalist system's (in an emergent sense) best interests to trend against censorship. I just think it's also the case that the interests of individual companies and/or individuals don't always coincide with the interests of capitalism at large.

Understood. Individual entities within capitalism may surely act this way, yes, in some senses, if it's within the bounds of their corporate property, specifically their website, it's, though pathetic and closed-minded, in their legal purview. Just look at Twitter.

 

[CiG]

Not in the trending feed, though. That's where the censorship was happening, from what I understand.

Oh no, actually random users were having things removed, their accounts banned etc. It was happening to relatively high profile conservative/libertarian/right users and even some left-wingers that are dissident.

But anyway I believe this topic has lost steam.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not familiar with that. But it is true that they've been accused of censoring trending topics:

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...k-denies-censoring-conservative-trending-news