Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
|
Post by Luca on Feb 12, 2021 15:18:53 GMT -8
Well, I see no similarity between a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory so I don't believe they deserve "equal time", and I see little danger in relying on scientists to determine what is factual science and what is not. I don't think the general public is qualified to make that determination............. Do falsehoods deserve the same respect and deference as the truth? No. But neither do we want a situation where an anointed few (be they "scientists" or Zuckerberg minions) determine for everyone else what is truth and what is falsehood, with the result that they decide what the rest are allowed to read and consider and what is suppressed. In contrast, I do see a similarity between scientific theory and conspiracy theory: both are unproven. The nice thing about scientific theories is that they are not suppressed simply because they are as yet unproven. Pretty much any scientific advance is a theory until it can be proven: Relativity, Mendelian genetics, cigarettes causing cancer, etc. etc. Even in my own career I've seen theories that were initially ridiculed proven true. When the theory is proven and becomes consensus, it survives. Otherwise it atrophies. Nobody is arguing "equal time" for anti-vaxers. They'll die out over time whether or not some feel the need to suppress it. Survival of the fittest, so to speak. Once we routinely support suppression of admittedly weird ideas, we are applying the brakes to the advance of ideas and free speech. Wisdom cannot be legislated,, but in a democracy we have to rely on the wisdom of a discerning populace if free speech is to thrive. [vilepagan said:]....... Are you in favor of forcing private social media companies to let people post whatever they want on their platforms, or do you think these companies have the right to decide what rules to apply to their social media sites?It's a legitimate question insofar as it goes, but it misses an important caveat. Social media sites are granted sweeping exceptions and protection against lawsuits brought against them for the content they make available, via Section 230. This is unique to the US. Neither you nor I are granted this much legal protection against comments we make or statements that we publicize. Even newspapers don't have this degree of protection. This protection was enacted to allow social media sites some latitude to present a range of opinions and a forum for all, without getting sued every time they turned around. This was deemed in the public interest and it has allowed them to grow wealthy, huge and very influential by what they present......... and by what they suppress. But if this privilege is abused such that they suppress political commentary they don't approve, then they are no longer serving that same public service which it was assumed they would provide. So to answer your question: No, private social media companies have a right to "decide what rules to apply". But they should not be allowed to have unique legal protection if they are going to employ that protection to suppress political speech. You can have it one way or the other. Not both...........................Luca |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 12, 2021 15:49:23 GMT -8
Well, I see no similarity between a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory so I don't believe they deserve "equal time", and I see little danger in relying on scientists to determine what is factual science and what is not. I don't think the general public is qualified to make that determination............. Do falsehoods deserve the same respect and deference as the truth?
In contrast, I do see a similarity between scientific theory and conspiracy theory: both are unproven. The nice thing about scientific theories is that they are not suppressed simply because they are as yet unproven. Pretty much any scientific advance is a theory until it can be proven: Relativity, Mendelian genetics, cigarettes causing cancer, etc. etc. Even in my own career I've seen theories that were initially ridiculed were proven true.When the theory is proven and becomes consensus, it survives. Otherwise it atrophies. Nobody is arguing "equal time" for anti-vaxers. They'll die out over time whether or not some feel the need to suppress it. Survival of the fittest, so to speak. Once we routinely support suppression of admittedly weird ideas, we are applying the brakes to the advance of ideas and free speech. Wisdom cannot be legislated,, but in a democracy we have to rely on the wisdom of a discerning populace if free speech is to thrive.
[vilepagan said:]
....... Are you in favor of forcing private social media companies to let people post whatever they want on their platforms, or do you think these companies have the right to decide what rules to apply to their social media sites?
It's a legitimate question insofar as it goes, but it misses an important caveat. Social media sites are granted sweeping exceptions and protection against lawsuits brought against them for the content they make available, via Section 230. This is unique to the US. Neither you nor I are granted this much legal protection against comments we make or statements that we publicize. Even newspapers don't have this degree of protection. This protection was enacted to allow social media sites some latitude to present a range of opinions and a forum for all, without getting sued every time they turned around. This was deemed in the public interest and it has allowed them to grow wealthy, huge and very influential by what they present......... and by what they suppress.
But if this privilege is abused such that they suppress political commentary they don't approve, then they are no longer serving that same public service which it was assumed they would provide.
So to answer your question: No, private social media companies have a right to "decide what rules to apply". But they should not be allowed to have unique legal protection if they are going to employ that protection to suppress political speech. You can have it one way or the other. Not both...........................LucaYour (bolded) point is accurate and frequently missed (or ignored?) by the left. it makes my wonder, what are they afraid of? A well-informed population? then, vilepoopy-head said: I guess that answers my question about who gets to decide. In his statement, it is he who gets to decide. How self-important he pretends to be. note he, like most politicians, believe the population generally too weak minded to make their own decisions. 🤷🏻♂️ |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 12, 2021 16:08:39 GMT -8
But they [social media companies] should not be allowed to have unique legal protection if they are going to employ that protection to suppress political speech. You can have it one way or the other. Not both...........................Luca I agree, and it is precisely that dichotomy that so many on the left are unwilling to debate rationally. The equations are simple. If a social media company allows all its members to post whatever they want, they are indeed a " platform" and entitled to the legal protections of Sec. 230. If a social media company in any way edits, suppresses or censors what is posted by its members, or bans those members from exercising the same free speech available to other members, they become a " publisher" and an " editor", with all the legal liabilities assigned to those titles. On any given day, if one is willing to make the effort, one could find radical Muslim extremists and other terrorist groups using social media to entice and recruit new members with rhetoric of jihad, the murder of civilians and the destruction of Israel. That kind of language goes unfettered. Yet those same social media companies have made it a common practice to censor or ban posts of conservative American opinions or the authors who posted them. This is the first time in human history that roughly a half dozen individuals (i.e. Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Tim Cook, etc.) almost completely control what the world's 7 billion people are allowed to access and view as information and truth. That is absolutely horrifying. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 12, 2021 20:00:14 GMT -8
Some will claim it's scientifically factual that we're in the midst of a man made global climate crisis, and that changing the economy to green will somehow save us.
Others think that's complete bullshit (or cow farts).
Which one should be silenced?
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 12, 2021 21:55:09 GMT -8
But they [social media companies] should not be allowed to have unique legal protection if they are going to employ that protection to suppress political speech. You can have it one way or the other. Not both...........................Luca I agree, and it is precisely that dichotomy that so many on the left are unwilling to debate rationally. The equations are simple. If a social media company allows all its members to post whatever they want, they are indeed a " platform" and entitled to the legal protections of Sec. 230. If a social media company in any way edits, suppresses or censors what is posted by its members, or bans those members from exercising the same free speech available to other members, they become a " publisher" and an " editor", with all the legal liabilities assigned to those titles. On any given day, if one is willing to make the effort, one could find radical Muslim extremists and other terrorist groups using social media to entice and recruit new members with rhetoric of jihad, the murder of civilians and the destruction of Israel. That kind of language goes unfettered. Yet those same social media companies have made it a common practice to censor or ban posts of conservative American opinions or the authors who posted them. This is the first time in human history that roughly a half dozen individuals (i.e. Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Tim Cook, etc.) almost completely control what the world's 7 billion people are allowed to access and view as information and truth. That is absolutely horrifying. Assuming that's all accurate, the lawsuits to end those protections should be queued up by now. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 13, 2021 3:53:24 GMT -8
Well, I see no similarity between a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory so I don't believe they deserve "equal time", and I see little danger in relying on scientists to determine what is factual science and what is not. I don't think the general public is qualified to make that determination............. Do falsehoods deserve the same respect and deference as the truth? No. But neither do we want a situation where an anointed few (be they "scientists" or Zuckerberg minions) determine for everyone else what is truth and what is falsehood, with the result that they decide what the rest are allowed to read and consider and what is suppressed... When the theory is proven and becomes consensus, it survives. Otherwise it atrophies. Nobody is arguing "equal time" for anti-vaxers....Wisdom cannot be legislated,, but in a democracy we have to rely on the wisdom of a discerning populace if free speech is to thrive. This protection was enacted to allow social media sites some latitude to present a range of opinions and a forum for all, without getting sued every time they turned around. This was deemed in the public interest and it has allowed them to grow wealthy, huge and very influential by what they present......... and by what they suppress. But if this privilege is abused such that they suppress political commentary they don't approve, then they are no longer serving that same public service which it was assumed they would provide. So to answer your question: No, private social media companies have a right to "decide what rules to apply". But they should not be allowed to have unique legal protection if they are going to employ that protection to suppress political speech. You can have it one way or the other. Not both...........................Luca No one suggested that scientists be the ones to decide what you're allowed to read, only that they be allowed to decide what is "science" and what is not. Yes, both scientific and conspiracy theories can both be unproven but that's where the similarity ends...and yes, you are suggesting that they receive equal time, or at least saying that both deserve to be heard equally. I don't agree. How is the "discerning public" supposed to make an informed choice when they are being bombarded by misinformation? I must also take exception to the view that this is political speech...I don't consider an anti-vaxing opinion to be a political one. Nor do I consider the "stop the steal" idiocy to be political commentary. It's just a lie that doesn't deserve to be disseminated. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 13, 2021 3:58:03 GMT -8
But they [social media companies] should not be allowed to have unique legal protection if they are going to employ that protection to suppress political speech. You can have it one way or the other. Not both...........................Luca On any given day, if one is willing to make the effort, one could find radical Muslim extremists and other terrorist groups using social media to entice and recruit new members with rhetoric of jihad, the murder of civilians and the destruction of Israel. That kind of language goes unfettered. Yet those same social media companies have made it a common practice to censor or ban posts of conservative American opinions or the authors who posted them. You implore the "left" to debate rationally and then you make multiple crazy claims. This is just nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 13, 2021 3:58:59 GMT -8
I agree, and it is precisely that dichotomy that so many on the left are unwilling to debate rationally. The equations are simple. If a social media company allows all its members to post whatever they want, they are indeed a " platform" and entitled to the legal protections of Sec. 230. If a social media company in any way edits, suppresses or censors what is posted by its members, or bans those members from exercising the same free speech available to other members, they become a " publisher" and an " editor", with all the legal liabilities assigned to those titles. On any given day, if one is willing to make the effort, one could find radical Muslim extremists and other terrorist groups using social media to entice and recruit new members with rhetoric of jihad, the murder of civilians and the destruction of Israel. That kind of language goes unfettered. Yet those same social media companies have made it a common practice to censor or ban posts of conservative American opinions or the authors who posted them. This is the first time in human history that roughly a half dozen individuals (i.e. Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Tim Cook, etc.) almost completely control what the world's 7 billion people are allowed to access and view as information and truth. That is absolutely horrifying. Assuming that's all accurate, the lawsuits to end those protections should be queued up by now. The fact that there isn't a queue of lawsuits tells you how accurate that statement is. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 13, 2021 4:00:11 GMT -8
Some will claim it's scientifically factual that we're in the midst of a man made global climate crisis, and that changing the economy to green will somehow save us. Others think that's complete bullshit (or cow farts). Which one should be silenced? Why would you suggest that either one should be silenced? Is this in any way a political statement? |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 13, 2021 6:26:41 GMT -8
Kennedy is claiming the science behind mass vaccinationa using the current vaccines is flawed, and is presenting examples to support his arguments. You support him being silenced.
What's the difference between that and those who are presenting opposing arguments about climate crisis?
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 13, 2021 9:10:13 GMT -8
How is the "discerning public" supposed to make an informed choice when they are being bombarded by misinformation? First, I think that statement reflects a common perception among members of the left that the American people are incapable of "discerning" between two differing opinions and choosing the one that makes the most sense to them. To me at least, the notion that American adults are so simple-minded that they need to be steered to the "correct" opinion by protecting them from even seeing any other ones is not only cynical, but also horribly insulting. On the contrary, I think lies do deserve to be disseminated and see the light of day. I'd rather trust adults to make the right choice between two differing opinions than allowing them exposure to only one. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 13, 2021 10:47:37 GMT -8
It's just a lie that doesn't deserve to be disseminated. On the contrary, I think lies do deserve to be disseminated and see the light of day. I'd rather trust adults to make the right choice between two differing opinions than allowing them exposure to only one. Right there is the key difference in values between left and right today. I also want to say it used to be the democrats who were clamoring for uncensored speech back in the 60s - 80s. I don't recall who was predominantly in power back then, but maybe the real takeaway is those in power tend to silence those who aren't, more so than it is a function of any particular political ideology of the 2 main parties. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 13, 2021 11:28:01 GMT -8
I don't recall who was predominantly in power back then, but maybe the real takeaway is those in power tend to silence those who aren't, more so than it is a function of any particular political ideology of the 2 main parties. I guess I disagree, unless by "those in power" you mean the media and communications outlets rather than the two political parties. Print and electronic media have leaned left for a half century, but they never had the power and reach of today's social media giants to silence huge numbers of people at their whim just because they disagree on political or social issues. Even when Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover were at the height of their power and influence, there was never the extensive attempt to silence people on such a mass scale as is happening now. I've never been an alarmist, but this is pretty terrifying. My family has been through this before. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 13, 2021 12:25:12 GMT -8
While anecdotal at best, it would be interesting to see the parallels both from the silencing, but more importantly, the acceptance of it.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 13, 2021 13:39:23 GMT -8
I don't recall who was predominantly in power back then, but maybe the real takeaway is those in power tend to silence those who aren't, more so than it is a function of any particular political ideology of the 2 main parties. I guess I disagree, unless by "those in power" you mean the media and communications outlets rather than the two political parties. Print and electronic media have leaned left for a half century, but they never had the power and reach of today's social media giants to silence huge numbers of people at their whim just because they disagree on political or social issues. Even when Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover were at the height of their power and influence, there was never the extensive attempt to silence people on such a mass scale as is happening now. I've never been an alarmist, but this is pretty terrifying. My family has been through this before. You and Luca made an interesting point about the protections afforded social media, which I assume comes with the expectation of not choosing sides. Wouldn't that also apply to mainstream media? |
|
