You should always get news from multiple sources regardless, companies and corporations can't control that either way.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You should always get news from multiple sources regardless, companies and corporations can't control that either way.
Yes they cant control us, but dont be fooled. Most people do not care and just get their news on facebook. These can be controlled very easily.
Privacy and freedom of information should not be something you have to actively manage. Our systems should be private and open by default.
normally I would not even care how misinformed large parts of the population are, but we live in a democracy, where the stupidity of people becomes a weapon to control us.
My reasoning for liking AJ being shunned of mainstream social media is specifically because most people don't fact check and source check. He has literally ruined the lives of personal friends and family with his brainwashing garbage. I don't trust the "tech giants" to make these decisions at all, but in this very specific case, I think it's more good than harm. He is a monster and 'normal' people shouldn't be able to find him.
Maybe there are cases where censorship brings positive results. But that is a dangerous slippery slope. Maybe there are also cases where discrimination brings some short term positive effects?
In the end I am not at all convinced that a political censoring facebook is adding something good to the world and I think in the end we will pay a higher price for it.
to conflate censorship with the current situation is bogus IMO. He isn't "being censored", he is being removed for telling his fanbase to kill people. He violated a contract he signed, plain and simple. It's now about what he says and thinks, it's about how he communicates it to his audience.
yes censorship may be too strong of a word. The problem is that these rules are not enforced in other cases and it always ends up being a case by case decision. This means that there is room for interpretation and thus the possibility to influence public opinion.
What is really confusing to me is that all platforms have taken this step at the same time. It means that it is very probable that they have coordinated it which means that the decision was not independently based on the terms of service.
I totally agree, the way things are enforced is out of whack, without a doubt. The "collusion" I think is funny, people are claiming it's like a sign of the end of the world or something, but I don't really think so.
So @cyberdemon531 you say " He has literally ruined the lives of personal friends and family with his brainwashing garbage." are you sure this is true ?? Can you prove that Alex Jones has done this really ??
He tells his severely right-wing audience to kill queer people, that's a good place to start.
prove that statement, i am sorry but i am pretty sure he has not said that !1 give me a link to this accusation you make !!
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/08/06/facebook-deletes-infowars-alex-jones-hate-speech-lgbt-racist-hate-speech/
You do know there is a difference between primary and tertiary evidence?
😂😂
"He is a monster and 'normal' people shouldn't be able to find him." so who do you decide @cyberdemon531 who are the normal people and that should be " protected " from Jones ?? Are you normal ?? Are your friends and family normal ?? How do you know ?? Who judges ?? You ?? Your friends ??
We, the collective people of society.
Oh so YOU are the collective majority now ?? Since when ?? Did you decide that, when was it voted and by who ??
We, the collective people of society (1).
'Society' is an abstract concept, made up of individuals.
Ergo, 'we' the collective is saying you are an abstract concept, not an individual.
That is symptomatic of delusion, and mental illness.
The individual is real.
(Try making a society without any individuals present - You can't.
But you can if the individual is the lowest denominator of agency.)
Only that you did not make that decision.
You personally (I hope :) ) did not do it.
Then you could say it was we as in we the voters, or we the people. But I dont think there was any serious debate about social media censorship prior to the elections.
That menas that some people made the decision without direct democratic legitimisation. Maybe they can claim an indirect legitimacy, I dont know that because I dont know to which degree the state is involved in this.
@gomeravibz points out the problem. Any decision taken will be arbitrary to some degree. There are so many questions now that need to be answered regarding future cases. Otherwise we find ourselves in a system of censorship where people can be censored not following strict open rules, but based on random criteria. From there it is only one more step to silencing opposition as desired.
Once you create a central authority you need to make sure that authority is kept in control. And it rarely is. Central authority is a major weak point for failure and corruption. In the end I believe that it is best if these central points of control do not exist at all.
the irony here being that 90% of society hates cyberdemon
keep being a racist shithead tho (according to society) because society is always correct and infallible