Censoring White Supremacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2017, 03:01 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 02:44 PM)TSG Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 02:26 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  If you say so. I would say I was pretty clear.

To a certain extent I can agree with this train of logic: a private corporation is not as restricted in its viewpoints and philosophies as the government and thus can make certain decisions about its policies which are beyond the scope of federal action. But when a corporation is the size of Google, which is so gargantuan that it impacts virtually everyone in the world in a big way, it's practically a monopoly.

About a century ago there were other monopolistic companies like the Standard Oil Company who could do whatever they wanted because of their influence and power: they could pay their workers in peanuts, they could jack up prices, they could pollute whatever they wanted, and they could quash unions who spoke out against it, all with impunity because of a lack of governmental regulation and competition. When people spoke out against them they insisted that they had a legal right to do as they pleased, since they were only a private company and their employees were under contract.

Google can start with censoring White Supremacists, all right. But since they're a private company, what's stopping them from censoring anyone they don't like? In fact there are indications that they hid negative search results about Clinton during the last election, although I'm not entirely sure about the validity of them. Nevertheless, if they so wished they could control what information people see, and who's going to stop them? They're only a private company after all. They can do as they please.

That sentiment is legal, and I agree with it in a literal constitutional sense, but it really does not sit well with me knowing that private corporations could (and maybe already do) control the flow of information for the sake of their own political agendas.

I agree with what you're saying, in the case of Google, but, the question is if someone searches about a subject, say evolution (not even questioning if it's true or not), do you want them to get a bunch of paid for ads from Ken Ham and the Creation Museum? Or the Koch brothers sponsored links and hits about climate change isn't happening if someone searching for climate change info and the real truth being pushed down to the next pages. Because if google restricts itself to popularity hits and takes money for paid links from anyone, there's a fuck ton of disinformation going around that people will have to try to filter for themselves.

I'm not worried about you TSG, or Elk or most people on this forum for falling for that crap, but the average american is pretty dumb. I, just yesterday, overheard two women discussing religion in line at the grocery store, saying they should't be teaching evolution in schools at all...the woman she was talking to made the brilliant "yeah, it's only a theory" argument, which they both giggled at because to these people theories aren't fact -- because they don't care what a real theory is.

To them, and others like them, it's just a guess.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
23-08-2017, 03:02 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 12:20 PM)adey67 Wrote:  So let me get this straight, the Intolerant must be tolerant of the tolerant but the tolerant must be intolerant to the intolerant in order for there to be tolerance as long as the tolerant are in charge and not emotionally triggered by having anyone disagree with their intolerance? Rolleyes
OLB started a thread he wasn't abusive he asked a question no need to swear and go off on him even if you disagree also no need to hijack said thread and turn it into yet another Trump bashing exercise no matter how justified. OLB is not Trump. Trump is a c*#t I hate him but seemingly making excuses all the time to bash his ass in order to at first appearance just score points and screw an anonymous dude on the internet who you disagree with makes true liberal progressives look desperate and woah... intolerantBig Grin fancy that !!!! Tongue.
I don't agree with OLB on a lot at all but in this case I do feel he has been unfairly vilified with a massive overreaction, and the one thing I admire most about America is its freedom of speech even for the most odious in society who do not deserve it.

And by this post I do NOT mean to say OLB is odious, controversial at times yes, provocative most certainly, odious ? NO!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2017, 03:06 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 03:02 PM)adey67 Wrote:  And by this post I do NOT mean to say OLB is odious, controversial at times yes, provocative most certainly, odious ? NO!!!

Dude hasn't bathed since the 1990's, he's at least odorous if not odiferous.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-08-2017, 03:10 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 03:01 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 02:44 PM)TSG Wrote:  To a certain extent I can agree with this train of logic: a private corporation is not as restricted in its viewpoints and philosophies as the government and thus can make certain decisions about its policies which are beyond the scope of federal action. But when a corporation is the size of Google, which is so gargantuan that it impacts virtually everyone in the world in a big way, it's practically a monopoly.

About a century ago there were other monopolistic companies like the Standard Oil Company who could do whatever they wanted because of their influence and power: they could pay their workers in peanuts, they could jack up prices, they could pollute whatever they wanted, and they could quash unions who spoke out against it, all with impunity because of a lack of governmental regulation and competition. When people spoke out against them they insisted that they had a legal right to do as they pleased, since they were only a private company and their employees were under contract.

Google can start with censoring White Supremacists, all right. But since they're a private company, what's stopping them from censoring anyone they don't like? In fact there are indications that they hid negative search results about Clinton during the last election, although I'm not entirely sure about the validity of them. Nevertheless, if they so wished they could control what information people see, and who's going to stop them? They're only a private company after all. They can do as they please.

That sentiment is legal, and I agree with it in a literal constitutional sense, but it really does not sit well with me knowing that private corporations could (and maybe already do) control the flow of information for the sake of their own political agendas.

I agree with what you're saying, in the case of Google, but, the question is if someone searches about a subject, say evolution (not even questioning if it's true or not), do you want them to get a bunch of paid for ads from Ken Ham and the Creation Museum? Or the Koch brothers sponsored links and hits about climate change isn't happening if someone searching for climate change info and the real truth being pushed down to the next pages. Because if google restricts itself to popularity hits and takes money for paid links from anyone, there's a fuck ton of disinformation going around that people will have to try to filter for themselves.

I'm not worried about you TSG, or Elk or most people on this forum for falling for that crap, but the average american is pretty dumb. I, just yesterday, overheard two women discussing religion in line at the grocery store, saying they should't be teaching evolution in schools at all...the woman she was talking to made the brilliant "yeah, it's only a theory" argument, which they both giggled at because to these people theories aren't fact -- because they don't care what a real theory is.

To them, and others like them, it's just a guess.
Aye, there's the rub, and it's a rub I wish I knew how to solve. Do you want one big private company trying to control you by deleting things they don't like, or a government granting false equivalence to different groups who claim to have to actual truth? Or is there some strange, misty third way?

Censored Why must life be so complicated? Why can't we have easy answers? Oh, that's right: most people go about their lives thinking there is one. Whether it's their church, or their chosen news station, or their political party, it's so much easier just to listen to that one side your entire life, since the search for truth is so taxing and difficult. Why not just sit back and let the big boys tell you what to think?

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TSG's post
23-08-2017, 03:18 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2017 03:21 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
@Tsg

Sometimes only one side is worth listening. For example any Polish nationalist claiming how wonderful Poles were for Jews pre, during and post war could be ignored as ignoramus, liar or bigot with agenda, as fact does not support such notion. It's the same with religious condemnations of same sex marriage, abortion or euthanasia; fact that other side has opinion does not make said opinion worth listening to.

Side note - I answered to your earlier post in edit of my answer to Outtathereligioncloset.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
23-08-2017, 03:19 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 02:30 PM)abaris Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 02:08 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  " my guys"????


Exactly which pigeonhole are you attempting to force me???

As a conservative. Aren't you?

My Republican neighbors think I' m a flaming liberal.....

So much for pigeonholes, huh???

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like onlinebiker's post
23-08-2017, 03:35 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 03:18 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  Sometimes only one side is worth listening. For example any Polish nationalist claiming how wonderful Poles were for Jews pre, during and post war could be ignored as ignoramus, liar or bigot with agenda.
I agree that several opinions are stupid and absurd -- but that's why they ought to be out in the open: for people to see easily how illogical and insufficient they are. I stand by my previous assertion that when an opinion is censored it only makes it more appealing. Call it the... Cookie-Jar Effect. Wink


Quote: It's the same with religious condemnations of same sex marriage, abortion or euthanasia; fact that other side has opinion doea not make said opinion worth listening to.
I simply have to disagree about those issues having only one side worth listening to. Even as an atheist I find abortion and euthanasia very difficult subjects to form an opinion about, although I admittedly don't think I've ever heard a good argument against same-sex marriage.

Quote:Google can censor anyone without starting with people despised by majority so slippery slope doesn't work here for me.
You know, now that I think about it, that's worse than a slippery slope. Slippery slopes start small and get worse, but this looks like it's already a huge problem.

Quote:I see merit in Niemoller famos quote but if neonazis rights are infriged upon* then I won't give a shit. It's possible that "they" will later come for me but I will be damned if I will stay in solidarity with people for wboh I feel only contempt.

*If Google hypotetical action could be considered such.
I simply cannot agree with you there. Already we're seeing ordinary people being attacked for being 'Nazis' because a precedent has been set. I will stand in solidarity with neo-Nazis, the Westboro Baptist Church, and Communists only insofar as they maintain the same right to free expression as everyone else, including me. When the question of their censorship is gone, I see no reason then not to engage in ordinary, civic discourse to refute them. Peacefully.

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2017, 03:51 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2017 04:00 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
@TSG

I don't call for censhorship of what I deem stupidity. Only ignoring or ridiculling it.

I see nothing difficult in forming opinion about abortion and euthanasia though decission to have one certainly can be difficult; I find no reason for which one or both should be illegal/penalized or stigmatized. Edit: I'm for freedom of choice here. And calling "pro-life" crowd pro-death one given that legal abortion is safer than childbirth. Whatever religions had to say about it I care not - primitive, tribal taboos and barbaric beliefs do not deserve considering them.

Don't know enough about Google politics to comment.

On last part we disagree. To use hyperbole I wouldn't piss on neonazi or neobolshevik if one would be on fire so I couldn't care less about whatever alleged discrimination they suffer for failing in achieving something like basic human decency. To reiterate - gov may come for me cause I didn't stand earlier with such shitty human beings but I preffer this to coming to defense of ideas and subscribents of which I abhor.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2017, 04:13 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 03:51 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  @TSG

I don't call for censhorship of what I deem stupidity. Only ignoring or ridiculling it.
Me too! Big Grin
Quote:I see nothing difficult in forming opinion about abortion and euthanasia though decission to have one certainly can be difficult; I find no reason for which one or both should be illegal/penalized or stigmatized. Edit: I'm for freedom of choice here. And calling "pro-life" crowd pro-death one given that legal abortion is safer than childbirth. Whatever religions had to say about it I care not - primitive, tribal taboos and barbaric beliefs do not deserve considering them.
Abortion is certainly safer for the mother, but it's definitely not safer for the fetus/baby. That's my problem with it. It's hard for me to see a fetus as just a clump of cells. Then again, if you can't take care of a baby why bring it to term just for it to suffer?

Quote:On last part we disagree. To use hyperbole I wouldn't piss on neonazi or neobolshevik if one would be on fire so I couldn't care less about whatever alleged discrimination they suffer for failing in achieving something like basic human decency. To reiterate - gov may come for me cause I didn't stand earlier with such shitty human beings but I preffer this to coming to defense of ideas and subscribents of which I abhor.

If you don't mind the government coming for you later, I guess that's fine. But I don't want it coming after me or other innocent people because Nazis' opinions were just too abhorrent to be allowed.

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2017, 04:17 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2017 04:22 PM by ELK12695.)
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 01:58 PM)Emma Wrote:  That's fine- you don't trust them. Although you are on the internet. Unless you're connection is tunneled through a VPN, your ISP has your browsing history. They know your IP and they know which sites you visit.

Whether you like it or not, trust them or not, want to work with them or not, if you operate in this world, you share quite a bit of your personal information with big companies, little companies (that often don't know how to treat your data with the security it deserves) and the government. I work in the data industry. I'm pretty familiar with what kind of information is out there about YOU that is bought and sold every day.

With all of that said, yes- they are a private company. And yes, they do reserve the right to change what behaviors are considered against their terms of service. Some things are legally protected, but beyond that, private companies can choose who not to serve.

Twitter bans people all the time for behavior that is outside of their terms of service. They don't have to allow everyone free access to say and do whatever they want with their service. And they shouldn't have to. Why should they have to?

I already told you. It's their company, and as long as they abide by the laws set by the countries they operate in, they can go about their buiness. But that gets us to the heart of the issue here. What happens when a giant corporation gets so bloated and powerful, it starts treading over lines?

I view giant corporations as a gathering of intrests, all looking for the same thing. Wealth. Whatever they use that wealth for is up to them, but all together they bring about an unstoppable machine that is driven by the collective wish of gathering wealth and if possible, power. In this process, anything that gets in it's way may be expendable. McDonalds is fully aware they're destroying the rainforests of the world. They still chop it down so their cows can fart the ozonelayer to pieces where the trees stood.

Right now, where I live, IKEA wants to build a warehouse on fertile soil. In my country, which is nothing but mountains and sour ground forests, fertile soil is really hard to come by. It can take hundreds of years to make it actually grow anything substatinal. Our country will be well and truly fucked if all our soil is lost to warehouses, and when a crysis hits, you can not be sure any of our neighbours wants to share their food. Yet, good ol' IKEA still wants to build that thing, RIGHT. THERE. It can't be anywhere else, otherwise the fat morons who drive on the freeway won't be tempted to buy a shitty svenska fit-skit chair to 99 kroner. To IKEA, the next generation can eat furniture for all they care.

And who knows... maybe one day, IKEA gets so big and bloated, that they feel the need to influence how things work in a country? To ensure things turn in their favor. I already see rich pricks buying themselves out of taxes by "donating" money to political parties here.

Do you see why I have no reason to trust them?

I'm not saying they need to go away. Their existence was inevitable from the get go; somebody is always better at selling their stuff than the other guy, and humans do like to have a monopoly on things.

(23-08-2017 01:58 PM)Emma Wrote:  Do you have any reason to believe that the Southern Poverty Law Center is using illegal methods of data gathering? I sure don't.


Like I said, they're handling sensitive information. That means being lawful is even more important *cue Uncle Ben generic Spiderman quote* But if they've existed for so long, I'm sure they're just fine and dandy.

(23-08-2017 01:58 PM)Emma Wrote:  And so far, I'm not quite sure what data exactly you are trying to hide from large corporations- assuming you mean Google, Facebook, and the like. I mean, don't use them. That's no skin off my back. But that still doesn't mean that they ought to be forced to provide service to white supremacist groups.


As a musician I am forced to use their sites to find people to play with or even organize a gig. See my response to admin further back in the thread.

(23-08-2017 01:58 PM)Emma Wrote:  Don't give the government the credit of all elected being elected. Most positions are not elected positions and most people who work with your data are simply every-day people like you and me. In fact, most of the people who see and work with your data are going to be low and mid-level employees, not the elected leaders.


They answer to the government as government employees. It is the leaders we elect that must ensure they do so.

(23-08-2017 01:58 PM)Emma Wrote:  Ok, yes, power corrupts. But forcing a company to provide service to intolerant groups that work to force other users into silence and off of their platform only gives power to the intolerant.

They're not a country that abides to protect all of it's citizens. They're a company. They set their own rules, and are free to do so. My concern with them is when they get massive, and want more and more.

Back in the old days when I played Rome: Total War, there was always a quote that stuck out to me in the loading screens:
"An alliance with the powerful is never to be trusted"
- Phaedrus

I thought it looked fitting.

[Image: 20cad83ad8d757191e2878b0f4bf05a9.png]
"Don't answer that. A rhetorical question."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: