MovieChat Forums > Politics > Do any leftists here oppose political ce...

Do any leftists here oppose political censorship by media/twitter/fb/google/etc.?

posted 5 years ago by krl97a (5619)
10 replies | jump to latest

Should these be platforms for diverse views and rigorous open discourse? Legality is a tangential issue but do you at least think their policies of systematically suppressing conservatives and general dissent from PC orthodoxy are a bad idea?

I'm curious, especially with the asinine "dictatorship" thread currently up babbling about a hypothetical crushing of dissent by Trump, when in real life it's going the other way. With tactics like "deplatforming", "shadowbanning", demonetization, and overt banning for trumped up or even no reasons given, we're currently on a trajectory toward half the American people being silenced. Do you think that's a good thing?

[–] Gd5150 (11317) 5 years ago

Haha!!! I had to log out to see the thread. Figured it was doggielemming. Nope one of the other boneheads lost in their leftwing fantasy world.

Their inability to have logical fact base discussions about reality really is astonishing.

It would be impossible for there to be a dictatorship under the current American right wing as freedom is the foundation of everything we believe in. It comes 1st before everything else. It’s why we hold the constitution and it’s limits on government so important.

For the left, the left comes 1st before everything else. Damn the constitution. Damn the law. Hence their lack of concern over left wing big tech censorship.

[–] willjbeau (649) 5 years ago

There is no such thing as private censorship. Only the government can censor, that is, suppress speech by force. If a company doesn't want you expressing your views on its platform, it's not coercing you to do anything. It's not your platform, it's theirs, you use it under their terms. So I would like to start by putting away the C-word.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

No, private entities can censor. TV networks, for example, have even traditionally employed people they call "censors" to enforce company guidelines. Semantics aside, did you not even read the op? I explicitly set legality aside and asked if you think it's a bad idea to silence half the American population.

PS - For the record I agree that private companies should have the right to censor (or whatever word you prefer to use). However, where you go wrong is the fact that social media companies were given a special exemption early on from the typical liabilities other publishers are subject to, because these social media outfits billed themselves as universal platforms for free speech. Clearly they no longer are. They're publishers with an editorial slant. That's fine, but they should have to operate by the same rules everyone else does. That means they should be held civilly and/or criminally liable for whatever gets posted on their site by those whom they allow to post there. That applied fairness would break their current monopolistic business model, driving them out of business or forcing them to go back to being universal platforms. But here I'd rather discuss what liberals think of the censorship policies. Even if they're legal you're allowed to have opinions on it.

[–] willjbeau (649) 5 years ago

You say you don't want to discuss the legal side, i.e., the side involving FORCE, and yet you continue to use the language of force, i.e., when you claim that they're "silencing half the American population". No one is being silenced, that implies force, coercion, and that's just not true.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

They're certainly being forced off the centers of public discourse; youtube, twitter, and facebook all have near monopolies in their respective arenas, a global domination earned when they were universal platforms for diverse views. Google is the most powerful company in American history and is scary evil. Even Paypal has joined in the act, refusing service to outspoken Christians or others who become targeted by online leftist mobs.

What is "deplatforming" if not effectively silencing someone? Silencing them is the entire point. It doesn't literally mean you can't still speak, but you won't be heard by a mass audience the same way a regular person who obediently adheres to the leftist orthodoxy of the day can.

Again though, set aside semantics and try to answer the question.

[–] willjbeau (649) 5 years ago

"It doesn't literally mean you can't still speak, but you won't be heard by a mass audience the same way a regular person who obediently adheres to the leftist orthodoxy of the day can." You're not entitled to a mass audience. Agree or disagree? And I disagree fervently that Google is "scary evil". Google made their fortune through production and trade, VOLUNTARY trade. What's so evil about that, and why shouldn't they be entitled to their riches, riches which were not stolen or cheated from anyone? You don't seem to realize how infected you are with anti-capitalist rhetoric, and how ironic that is given your disdain for leftists.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Google has worked to help totalitarian countries oppress their people through internet censorship, has committed various types of fraud and defamation, including by attaching fake "hate" quotes to conservative sites so they'd be suppressed in their rigged algorithms, and has discriminated all over the place in its hiring and workplace policies. But their evil goes way beyond that. Evil and illegal aren't necessarily synonymous.

Now back to the actual topic:

You're not entitled to a mass audience. Agree or disagree?

Legally I agree. But, for what seems like the millionth time, I'm not discussing the law. When I post criticisms of a movie I'm not saying the government should ban the movie. I am entitled to have opinions on private sector material. My preference is that there be no political censorship and that these platforms allow a free and robust debate by people with diverse views. Let things get sorted out in the arena of ideas.

So do you think it's a good idea for these dominant platforms to ensure that conservatives don't have a mass audience? Do you have any qualms with such censorship or are you fine with it?

[–] TexasJack (12515) 5 years ago

Incorrect.

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yes, I oppose it. I want to see the stupid things people have written and then lecture them on it. Can't do that if it's censored.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Good for you, lol. I share that sentiment.