Critical voices are denounced under the umbrella term "conspiracy theorist" to undermine their credibility and keep them from reaching large crowds, etc. — Tzeentch

Such is a conspiracy theory in itself.

I take a conspiracy theory to be a theory based upon perceived self-serving or malicious motives by the actor without evidentiary support, which I think are properly called out due to their lack of credibility.

Such is a conspiracy theory in itself. — Hanover

I think what Tzeentch said can be said without it being a conspiracy theory: people are denounced because they are perceived to be conspiracy theorists, even if it isn't only to maliciously undermine them.

But isn't calling out a conspiracy theory of any kind an attempt to undermine? Isn't that the purpose of calling it out? And how does Tzeentch's supposed conspiracy theory actually constitute a conspiracy theory according to your definition? Are Tzeentch's motives actually malicious or self-serving here?

Such is a conspiracy theory in itself. — Hanover

That's not a conspiracy theory where I live. That's proven fact.

We have a government actively trying to deplatform and intimidate critical voices.

I assume you live in the United States, so are you unaware of what for example the CIA gets up to? Those things are all publicly available.

Isn't it common practice in the United States to threaten dissidents and whistleblowers to such an extent they have to find amnesty in another country? What do you think that is?

perceived self-serving or malicious motives — Hanover

That seems too nebulous. We have to really know if they are malicious or self-serving according to some criteria. An interpretation of your comment towards Tzeentch could be that you think he is malicious and are intentionally undermining his theory based upon his perceived intentions, but I wouldn't make that judgement because I can't read your mind.

I assume you live in the United States, so are you unaware of what for example the CIA gets up to? Those things are all publicly available. — Tzeentch

My position is that if there is insufficient evidence to support a theory other than that there might be a motive by some people to commit a certain act, the theory fails for lack of evidence.

That there are instances where there is adequate evidence to support the allegation, then that is not a conspiracy theory. I'm not interested in sorting out particular examples where there is adequate evidence and those where there is not.

My comment was specifically directed at stating that where a conspiracy theory has been alleged and there is not sufficient evidence that the underlying act occurred, it is appropriate to call out the the theory as a conspiracy theory in order to undermine the credibility of the speaker.

My comment was specifically directed at stating that where a conspiracy theory has been alleged and there is not sufficient evidence that the underlying act occurred, it is appropriate to call out the the theory as a conspiracy theory in order to undermine the credibility of the speaker. — Hanover

And my point was that this practice of stigmatization is being weaponized by those in power to silence critical voices.

My position is that if there is insufficient evidence to support a theory other than that there might be a motive by some people to commit a certain act, the theory fails for lack of evidence — Hanover

Shit. I misunderstood you. My bad.

I'd prefer the now antiquated concept of self regulation, where news outlets adhere to journalistic standards. That used to be a thing. — Hanover

I also prefer the print media's self-regulation--in an open atmosphere where the quality of self-regulation can be publicly examined. Noam Chomsky spent a lot of time dissecting what he thought were the deceptions and strategic omissions of the newspaper-of-record, The New York Times. The NYT is better than most. It takes more than self-regulation to produce a great newspaper -- it also takes a large audience and revenue.

Twitter (and other social media) are not analogous to 'the press'. Print and broadcast news companies have a limited number of more or less professional staff producing and editing copy. Twitter, Facebook, et al have billions of contributors, and the task of the social media companies is to keep a lid on the proceedings. Their problem is not maintaining high levels of quality; it's to prevent their descent into the hellscape of trash (which will repel major advertisers).

On the other hand, social media and the press have similar enterprise issues: maintaining the customer base (the advertisers) by delivering the commodity (the eyeballs) to maintain cash flow and profitability. The market contributes to self-regulation: if the public drifts away from the product, the advertisers (and revenue) goes with them. That last is the sad story of old print media.

Revenue follows eyeballs and the advertisers decided that the eyeballs on the internet were more accessible and targetable than the eyeballs on the local daily newspaper.

Free speech and the market!

The FCC already maintains some regulatory control over the airwaves because it considers them public property, but, even then it is very limited. — Hanover

I hadn't even thought about the FCC and similar agencies. Problem is, as you note, government has an ownership role in the airwaves that it doesn't with the internet.

I'd also add that not all Western countries permit openly racist comments to be made. As in the example of Germany, they have very strict laws related to holocaust denying and hate speech. Obviously they are a nation that almost destroyed itself from such speech, and they have an interest in protecting against it recurring.

The idea that some sort of censorship might have or will stop Germany from destroying itself doesn’t really work. Legal philosopher Eric Heinze calls it the “Weimar fallacy”. Weimar Germany had quite significant hate speech laws for the time and Nazis were routinely censored. The propagandist Theo Fritsch, and Streicher and Holtz of Der Sturmer, for instance, were fined and jailed frequently for their anti-Semitic publications. Maybe they weren’t censored enough, or maybe their censorship gave them a platform, but either way hate speech laws proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was any real argument for it. It didn’t work.

I would argue it might have even fuelled their desire for vengeance. In a debate with Otto Welles, Hitler himself cites the censorship of the Nazis as one of the reasons for the Enabling Act. In other words, they used their persecution as an excuse to persecute others.

Chomsky has a good point about Holocaust denial. He notes that in countries where Holocaust denial is a crime, Holocaust denial is taken more seriously, whereas in the US it isn’t.

The paradox is that censoring holocaust denial actually lends credibility to holocaust denial in the minds of some people.

Instead let such discussion take place in the open, where ridiculous ideas can openly be shot down and ridiculed.

That's the power of free speech.

I don't agree with this because that assumes anyone was arguing for complete control of the media by a regulatory body. — Hanover

I don't follow. It seems the strength of regulation isn't at issue so much as the content. If one regulates, say, incitement to violence, one can do so extremely proactively and yet not touch political propaganda. It's possible to allow people to lie their heads off about the economy but insist on only peer reviewed multiply corroborated facts on health - for example.

As noted in the OP, there was a time when there were relatively few mass media outlets, who, by agreement, regulated the press based upon some ethical rules they agreed upon. We were operating at that time under a strict regulatory scheme, but no one sees it that way because we refuse to view it as censorship because it was by private enterprise.

And really that's precisely the only control we have right now to runaway offensive speech. Kanye can't engage in anti-Semitic talk not because the US government can stop him, but because Adidas executives won't allow it. — Hanover

But this contradicts itself. You say institutions (newspapers) used to have an ethical code, but then conflate this with Adidas's corporate PR management. The two are not necessarily the same. I'm not saying they aren't, but the case is not made by simply pointing both out and assuming. It's possible the cantankerous old farts such as myself are actually right and society has actually changed. It's possible that journalists used to think of themselves as arbiters of truth and now think of themselves as financial assets. Cultures do change, after all and not always for the better.

Sort of because Twitter is new and the cost of entry is very low, as compared to how difficult it was when I was younger to get my letter to the editor published about whatever nonsense bothered me at the time. — Hanover

Yes, but the cost of entry isn't low is it (or wasn't - that's the problem), taking social media in general (I don't take part in any social media at all, so they're all a bit of a blur to me).

The sitting president was unable to enter, for example, to talk about political matters.

Being a practising medical professor was not sufficient to debate the issue of masks during Covid.

Being aligned to the Russian state bars entry.

On multiple occasions being qualified, well-respected, peer supported and at the forefront of one's field was insufficient entry requirement to say what one wanted to say on various social media platforms.

If you're repeating one the approved narratives, you could be a chimpanzee and they'd let you on, but those who would prefer to voice alternative opinions find the bar set very high indeed. No qualification short of god seems to be enough.

It was Trump who was posting, which means it was the government doing the posting complaining about the non-government regulating him, and also claiming the government lacked the right to regulate the government, if you follow that confusing road. — Hanover

It seems difficult to believe, given the significant links between politicians and social media entities that this was free of politics. When Trump supporters went to Parler, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeded furiously that Google and Apple should remove the app from their stores. Within days they did. A few days later Amazon closed their servers. within a week the enterprise had crumbled completely. You're not going to tell me that wasn't political.

If you're going to blur the distinction between private and government, then you're going to impose a duty on private outlets (like Twitter and I guess this site) to publish everything and eliminate moderation. — Hanover

The line is already blurred. Twitter and Facebook have both admitted to having direct links to the government of the US where the allowed content and direction of their censorship is discussed. Facebook have testified that they were directly instructed, for example, to suppress talk of the Hunter Biden laptop (since found to be almost certainly genuine). As if lobbying power wasn't already enough to blur the lines. It's not me doing the blurring.

And no, I wouldn't, and haven't been, arguing for an elimination of moderation. What I'm arguing is that normal moderation has been around for centuries and worked perfectly well. We don't allow hate speech, incitement, defamation, and (depending on the platform) uninformed opinion. What's changed recently is not a sudden need to re-look at these normal acts of moderation. What's changed recently is one power group wanting to use moderation to impose a political narrative and another wanted to resist that (and I suppose a third jumping on that bandwagon to have the free-for-all they've always wanted but never had). I've no time at all for this third camp, but support the second.

People also speak without knowing what they're talking about all the time. I assume that's always been the case. — Hanover

As I've demonstrated above. This is no longer the case. One could be barely out of short trousers and speak endlessly with zero qualification about, for example, how brilliant vaccines are, but a tenured professor with 25 years experience in medicine cannot even hint at any problems with vaccines on exactly the same platform. Qualification is not the issue. The correct narrative is.

Are you aware of a different system? — Hanover

Yes. Suitable qualification to speak on the subject.

Ignorance has been around forever, including in the internet age. I remember plenty of ignorance on AOL message boards, blogs, and various websites.

The issue now is social media. But since the major sites are owned by huge corporations (or one individual) -- Google (YouTube), Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Twitter (Musk) -- you'd think we're in the same situation. What's changed?

What's changed is the business model that social media companies follow. It's quite different from newspapers, television, and radio. Tristan Harris has done good work on this. The issue is that what is more likely to go viral, get views or clicks is often the most outrageous, inflammatory, and divisive. This isn't suppressed because clicks, shares, and likes is exactly what is being sold.

So it's not that we should censor ignorance and stupidity -- it's that we shouldn't be promoting them, which is what these companies are doing. For money, as always. Yet more evidence to abolish capitalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLfr7sU5W2E

The issue is that what is more likely to go viral, get views or clicks is often the most outrageous, inflammatory, and divisive. This isn't suppressed because clicks, shares, and likes is exactly what is being sold. — Mikie

But isn't censorship the issue here? The OP is in response to Elon Musk's removal of censorship from Twitter. This removal is newsworthy because it hasn't been done by other social media corporations.

So the state of affairs we currently have is not as you describe where 'anything goes' so long as it gets clicks. It's one where potential clicks are sacrificed for some other objective.

You don't think RT or Tass reports would gain thousands of 'clicks' if they were allowed (using YouTube as an example here)?

You don't think discussion of Hunter Biden's laptop would have been click-bait heaven for Facebook?

The Wuhan lab leak theory was going viral before it was throttled.

Twitter used its 'obtained without authorization' policy to block the account of an activist group responsible for the “BlueLeaks” on police misconduct. 

I can see the argument that social media algorithms lead to ever more divisive and inflammatory views, but on the subject of censorship, it's the human CEOs and management who are making decisions, and they're making them against what would make good click-bait (though presumably still for monetary gain).

The OP is in response to Elon Musk's removal of censorship from Twitter. — Isaac

He's still censoring just as much as before, it's just getting more publicity because he's allowing Trump and Kenya back on and liberals don't like it. There are still plenty of things you can't say, and rightfully so.

What's more interesting is the idea of subscriptions. If he goes forward with that idea, then it truly does change things because it's changing the business model.

I can see the argument that social media algorithms lead to ever more divisive and inflammatory views, but on the subject of censorship, it's the human CEOs and management who are making decisions, and they're making them against what would make good click-bait (though presumably still for monetary gain). — Isaac

Rarely, and only when there's political pressure to do so. It doesn't change the basic technology underlying social media, optimized for views.

But yes, these private owners have always been allowed to dictate terms of service. That's what we accept when we click "agree" to them. They can censor anything they'd like, because they own it. I don't necessarily like that, of course, but it's always been that way.

I started to look at Musk’s free speech claims on Twitter and remain sceptical (he won’t allow Alex Jones back, for example). But his new-found interest in free speech and politics promises to be quite interesting.

No, it's just self-promotion, which is the driver of all social media. He's trying to show that his new branded version is better than the old, so everyone should come back and see what he's got in store. PT Barnum is waving people in to see the show.

If it is his intent to bring down the barriers that would assure meaningfully reliable tweets, then all I should expect to see is more unreliable information coming from Twitter.

The link between the use of social media and the acceptance of misinformation as valid and a belief in conspiracy theories is fairly well established. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-021-09734-6 What this means is that in his quest to promote free speech for the sake of free speech, he's just fueling belief in false information.

My expectation from all of this is that it will only breed greater polarization from those who demand evidence based information from those who are more willing to accept conspiratorial theories. Not that I ever actually logged into Twitter, nor that I have actually tweeted, but the prospects of that ever occurring have in any event fallen.

Well, I’m sold. I can’t wait to see what he exposes.

The researchers in your study find that “ social media usage alone appears incapable of promoting beliefs in conspiracy theories and misinformation. Rather, individuals must possess a belief system hospitable to conspiratorial information.” So it cannot be said that he is fuelling belief in false information by making such claims, at least until he explicitly asks people to believe such false information.

People must already possess the mental framework, which we might blame on other factors such as education. As we’ve seen, however, those who declare themselves the authorities on such matters are often not that very good at it, and will censor true information from both those with and without the belief system hospitable to conspiratorial information. Such information ought not to be censored so that those who do not have that mental framework can better compete with those that do.

So it cannot be said that he is fuelling belief in false information by making such claims, at least until he explicitly asks people to believe such false information. — NOS4A2

It can be said he is fueling those with conspiratorial mindsets, just not causing them.

It can be said he is fueling those with conspiratorial mindsets, just not causing them.

It can be, and often is said, that people can “fuel” human activity with their expressions, but I find the analogy to be somewhat false. Personally I do not think Elon’s expressions (nor anyone’s) has the kind of force to manipulate matter and people in such ways, like oxygen fuelling a fire. People will receive the information and run with it however they will, and according to their own will and volition. That’s why he who dispenses such information cannot be blamed for how others act upon it.

People will receive the information and run with it however they will, and according to their own will and volition. That’s why he who dispenses such information cannot be blamed for how others act upon it. — NOS4A2

You mix an empirical claim with a moral claim. Whether shutting down Trump reduces the influence of Trump is an empirical question, and the data indicates it does: https://www.vox.com/recode/22421396/donald-trump-social-media-ban-facebook-twitter-decrease-drop-impact-youtube.

Whether Trump is morally responsible for the bad choices people make based upon the encouragement they receive from Trump is a different matter. I blame the person for their bad choice. I blame Trump for encouraging bad behavior, but not for the choice the person made based upon that encouragement.

That is, if I encourage you to steal and you do, I'm not a thief, but I'm also not a terribly moral person either.

Elon Musk has made Twitter his Facebook page! He's transforming ... slowly but surely ... into something quite hideous some would say.

What I don't get OP is why single out Twitter in this way. Free speech is an issue that touches all social media platforms. I suppose it's about reach - Twitter has ~ 450 million users on any day.

Censoring someone certainly reduces his reach. That’s why it is a double evil because not only is his free speech violated but so is our right to hear it. Either way, the hatred of what Trump says and the efforts to silence him indicates that he also influences people in an opposite direction, towards committing censorship and other violations of basic human rights.

I agree with what you say about morals. Simple morals and manners ought to be enough to refrain one from being disrespectful, mean, lying, bigotry, encouraging immoral behavior etc.. But we’ve tried developing moral behavior with coercion, censorship, ostracism and the results are nothing to be proud of.

That’s why it is a double evil because not only is his free speech violated but so is our right to hear it. — NOS4A2

That is an interesting way of thinking about it! And because the speaker and the listener both benefit from free speech, they both have a responsibility to use it wisely: the speaker (to not violate rules of respect and decency) and the listener (to be careful and judicious with the media they consume).

But we’ve tried developing moral behavior with coercion, censorship, ostracism and the results are nothing to be proud of. — NOS4A2

I think censorship and ostracism can be used responsibly when counteracting speech that is downright hateful, violent, or utterly false. However, their use should be limited. While relying on the speaker, listener, and community to police themselves is not a very satisfying approach, that is probably the safest method. We as a society should put more emphasis on the responsibility that comes with free speech. The problem is when some individuals blatantly disregard the "rules", and how society should cope with them.

these private owners have always been allowed to dictate terms of service. That's what we accept when we click "agree" to them. They can censor anything they'd like, because they own it. I don't necessarily like that — Mikie

You sound remarkably complacent. If the main platform for discussing global warming were run by fossil fuel companies would you equally shrug with "oh well, they're private companies, so not much we can do..."

There's always something we can do. Protest. Kick up a fuss. Make a noise. Same as always.

I think a lot of people on the left are simply allowing devastating corporate power plays because they thought (with unbelievable naivety) that it'd work for them during covid and Trump.

But there's a really serious problem here where a corporate-government alliance are controlling public discourse to further their private interests. We can't just let that go with a shrug.

You sound remarkably complacent. — Isaac

There's always something we can do. Protest. Kick up a fuss. Make a noise. Same as always. — Isaac

No kidding. Not once did I suggest we remain complacent.

Yet more evidence to abolish capitalism. — Mikie

That's what's needed, and there's plenty we can do to bring it about. The censorship issue is secondary.

We can't just let that go with a shrug. — Isaac

Great, so go do something about it.

I'm absolutist about freedom to speak the truth. If there is a fire, shout fire, publish and be damned! Freedom to lie, to make promises and not keep them, to deceive, to manipulate, not so much.

I'm surprised that folks are so undiscriminating about speaking truth and speaking falsely. To tolerate untruth is to tolerate the undermining of all communication and the whole of society. Even capitalism cannot function without standards of truth in advertising without honest accounting, and so on. If politicians, salesmen, police, and ordinary people had the right to lie, society would collapse.

I'm surprised that folks are so undiscriminating about speaking truth and speaking falsely. — unenlightened

People are obviously not undiscriminating about speaking falsely, don't be naive. The things you think are false other people think are true. They disagree with you, astonishing though you may find that.

Freedom of speech has nothing whatsoever to do with actual truth, it has to do with power.

It's about who is going to have the power to declare what is true and what is not. The matter of what actually is true doesn't even get a walk on part.

Currently mooted...

Trust Lab, the company dedicated to creating a safer internet using ML-powered Trust & Safety, today announced its strategic partnership with In-Q-Tel (IQT) for a long-term project that will help identify harmful content and actors in order to safeguard the internet. — Trust Lab website

In-Q-Tel (IQT), formerly Peleus and In-Q-It, is an American not-for-profit venture capital firm based in Arlington, Virginia. It invests in high-tech companies to keep the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability. — Wiki

Anyone who cares more about some nutters advocating anti-5g headwear than they do about the CIA policing what is and isn't allowed on social media needs their head examining (or possibly some more powerful anti-5g headwear).

The things you think are false other people think are true. — Isaac

I assume you think that, and by and large I disagree. Obviously I cannot totally disagree. But I think we can, and that we need to, find the truth, agree what is true and enforce the truth. You know the warning, "don't buy a pig in a poke", (A poke is a cloth bag) The reason is that unscrupulous persons might sell you a cat in a poke, claiming it is a pig. If you let the cat out of the bag, you will know it is not a pig. We can agree, I think, that a cat is not a pig. At the point where we cannot agree such things, talk has become meaningless and the market unusable. And we ought to be able to agree that losing an election is not winning the election. and if we cannot, democracy has become unusable.

I think we can, and that we need to, find the truth, agree what is true and enforce the truth. — unenlightened

I didn't say we couldn't. I said that internet censorship has nothing to do with such a quest.

we ought to be able to agree that losing an election is not winning the election. and if we cannot, democracy has become unusable. — unenlightened

Really? And this has bothered you for how long?



It's the same political shenanigans, just now they've invented a new cudgel 'disinformation'.