Censorship Around the World

[canthai55]

Just finished reading this - as always fascinating, a great author and Civil Libertarian.

 

Thoughts ? Experiences ?

 

[Swiss1960]

This from the guy who defended Weinstein and Trump in his first impeachment trial... 

[statman78]

Haven’t read the book and probably won’t but I do believe big tech and big media are the new censors.  They tend to allow stories that fit their agenda and if they need to report a story that doesn’t fit their agenda they will spin it so it doesn’t sound too bad.

 

Just saw a interview with the head of YouTube.  The new policy is to remove anything dealing with Covid that goes against the WHO recommendations.  Of course we all know the WHO has been 100% correct when it comes to this pandemic ????

[Doctor Tom]

There has always been censorship for the plebs, it was ever thus, its just a new form for a new age.  Its ever more important to research, filter, judge and decide for yourself and the new woke generation are ever more incapable of doing that. The rise of so called ' digital influencers', who make their minds up for them, reinforces that view.  Let's face it, censored or not, humanity is basically <deleted>.  Perhaps open forums become the last bastian of free debate?  haha, just joking. 

[canthai55]

42 minutes ago, Swiss1960 said:

This from the guy who defended Weinstein and Trump in his first impeachment trial... 

They do not deserve a fair trial ?

When I was forced to go to court I hired the best lawyer I could.

Foolish to do otherwise.

Asked a lawyer once - he said I went to LAW school not JUSTICE school 555

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Swiss1960 said:

This from the guy who defended Weinstein and Trump in his first impeachment trial... 

Allegedly linked to Epstein too in more ways than one.

Putting that aside I think Big Tech should stay out of censorship as much as possible. For significant issues though, such as Trump and associates attacks on democracy, and people making dangerous and clearly false claims about the pandemic, the downside of limiting free speech may outweigh the upside. It's all been said before. 

So you can say that free speech should never be limited or you can look at where that line is between a safe and orderly society and the rights of free speech. 

Big Tech is not government too so up to them. You can stop using them and tell others to do the same.  

 

[Sparktrader]

2 hours ago, statman78 said:

Haven’t read the book and probably won’t but I do believe big tech and big media are the new censors.  They tend to allow stories that fit their agenda and if they need to report a story that doesn’t fit their agenda they will spin it so it doesn’t sound too bad.

 

Just saw a interview with the head of YouTube.  The new policy is to remove anything dealing with Covid that goes against the WHO recommendations.  Of course we all know the WHO has been 100% correct when it comes to this pandemic ????

They banned Sky despite them quoting who figures.

 

Anyone who isnt an alarmist doom sayer gets banned!!

 

Youtube is a fact free zone

[canthai55]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

 the downside of limiting free speech may outweigh the upside.

NEVER

Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.

Noam Chomsky

[Sparktrader]

We know the who fudges stuff

We know the ipcc fudges stuff 

We know people on tv and radio are biased

 

Let free speech reign. People can research the stuff themselves.

 

The data is there. Deaths from covid, age etc.

 

We know the risk is low for under 50yos no underlying conditions.

 

Why ban this??????

Facts

[Sparktrader]

Biden said 200m to die from Covid. How come they didnt ban that idiot????

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Swiss1960 said:

This from the guy who defended Weinstein and Trump in his first impeachment trial... 

So what? Everyone is entitled to a defence in court.

 

Anyway, whoever he defended it doesn't mean he's wrong in his book. Deflecting much?

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

after careful consideration, and on balance, I believe freedom of expression, including aggression, hate, even yes inciting violence, pseudo facts, etc. must be ABSOLUTE. and decriminalized.

Like US Constitution ? Let those weak minded fools who get “incited” reveal themselves……. 

Like US “Democratic”  ( no, they are not) & UK Socialist “leaders” ( elected no less, “god” help us)

who clearly & routinely incite Violence, under misguided legal privilege I guess, and got clean away with it……..

 

Let the resultant legal & social debate / consequences ( reputation & job loss) be sufficient against ALL forms of Totalitarianist Expression. We have good laws against Defamation & Actual (Physical) Violence. The moment you start qualifying that absolutism you get silly laws that protect religion (obvious nonsense) and “ hate crime”, which just further encourages maniacs to kill “offenders”.

Next step was “Speech Is Violence”(no, it is not), then Deplatforming then Cancelling People, whether or not stating fact-based opinions.

 

Difficult but Important Subject……..Freedom of Expression now substantially LOST in western countries……..how to turn the clock back ?

 

[mikebike]

4 hours ago, canthai55 said:

They do not deserve a fair trial ?

When I was forced to go to court I hired the best lawyer I could.

Foolish to do otherwise.

Asked a lawyer once - he said I went to LAW school not JUSTICE school 555

It is NOT that they do not deserve a fair trial. It is that those who cannot afford the best do not get a fair trial.

 

But, as you mentioned, there is a big difference between the law and justice.

[Sparktrader]

52 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So what? Everyone is entitled to a defence in court.

 

Anyway, whoever he defended it doesn't mean he's wrong in his book. Deflecting much?

Every crim lawyer defends bad guys

 

 

[Sparktrader]

Truth is there

For those who seek

 

[canthai55]

Australia shows that Facebook cares about censorship only when it’s profitable.

The contrast between Facebook’s combative approach to Australia and its approach to laws in, for example, Pakistan could not be starker. The tech giant has claimed strong ideological objections to laws in both countries. But it truly fought those provisions only when they threatened its economic interests.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/02/23/facebook-australia-pakistan-censorship-blasphemy/

 

Reminds me of what happens on various internet forums where the fear of losing advertising dollars drives what is allowed to remain visible.

Edited August 17, 2021 by canthai55

[zzaa09]

On 8/16/2021 at 9:53 AM, Doctor Tom said:

There has always been censorship for the plebs, it was ever thus, its just a new form for a new age.  Its ever more important to research, filter, judge and decide for yourself and the new woke generation are ever more incapable of doing that. The rise of so called ' digital influencers', who make their minds up for them, reinforces that view.  Let's face it, censored or not, humanity is basically <deleted>.  Perhaps open forums become the last bastian of free debate?  haha, just joking. 

Where might one find this free and open forum that you speak of?

[Doctor Tom]

On 8/20/2021 at 5:42 AM, zzaa09 said:

Where might one find this free and open forum that you speak of?

I was joking, that's why I wrote 'just joking' in the post? 

[Sparktrader]

On 8/17/2021 at 2:39 PM, canthai55 said:

Australia shows that Facebook cares about censorship only when it’s profitable.

The contrast between Facebook’s combative approach to Australia and its approach to laws in, for example, Pakistan could not be starker. The tech giant has claimed strong ideological objections to laws in both countries. But it truly fought those provisions only when they threatened its economic interests.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/02/23/facebook-australia-pakistan-censorship-blasphemy/

 

Reminds me of what happens on various internet forums where the fear of losing advertising dollars drives what is allowed to remain visible.

$runs the world.

 

Kerry Packer said everyone is a whore, just a matter of price.

 

 

[worgeordie]

<deleted> <deleted> <deleted>

Even on Aseannow

regards worgeordie

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by worgeordie

[StreetCowboy]

Free speech is not free publication.  I am not obliged to repeat your views, and nor is TV or Facebook.

[Sparktrader]

3 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

Free speech is not free publication.  I am not obliged to repeat your views, and nor is TV or Facebook.

Then they should be banned in the country. If youtube or facebook want to be nazis they can <deleted> off.

[StreetCowboy]

5 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Then they should be banned in the country. If youtube or facebook want to be nazis they can <deleted> off.

That is a bit repressive.

I expect you will be sending out the hit squads because I won't echo  your ranting.

[Sparktrader]

6 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

That is a bit repressive.

I expect you will be sending out the hit squads because I won't echo  your ranting.

No u r a person. They are a major search engine news source.

[canthai55]

16 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

Free speech is not free publication.  I am not obliged to repeat your views, and nor is TV or Facebook.

Stopping the publication is a Ban on Free Speech.

I may not agree with you, but I will stand up for your right to say it.

This goes for any subject - and I mean ANY

You can not draw lines - you either have Free Speech - or you don't

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by canthai55

[Fat is a type of crazy]

37 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

Stopping the publication is a Ban on Free Speech.

I may not agree with you, but I will stand up for your right to say it.

This goes for any subject - and I mean ANY

You can not draw lines - you either have Free Speech - or you don't

 

Facebook in Myanmar let free speech reign. Not for ethical reasons but because they didn't want the cost of moderation. Chatter started about the Rohingya and that they were responsible for this and that. As usual there is a tiny bit of truth but then constant lies and exaggerations led to a full blown massacre, and those that could, had to flee to the neighboring country. That's despite them having a history in the country for 100's of years. It is widely accepted that facebook added to it by letting lies, fear, and hate spread so much faster and get out of control than it would otherwise. That's an example where I think free speech has to be moderated and it can apply to certain similar situations.

What if Jim Jones could have got on Facebook and told people around the world to drink the Kool aid. 

For covid there are possibilities, ideas, half truths, exaggerations and out right lies.  Yes it is hard to define which is which but not impossible - most things should be left alone but outright lies by powerful and influential people should at least have a warning sign. 

These are just examples where some moderation may be appropriate if lives are at stake. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Facebook in Myanmar let free speech reign. Not for ethical reasons but because they didn't want the cost of moderation. Chatter started about the Rohingya and that they were responsible for this and that. As usual there is a tiny bit of truth but then constant lies and exaggerations until a full blown massacre and those that could had to flee to the neighboring country. That's despite them having a history in the country for 100's of years. It is widely accepted that facebook added to it by letting lies, fear, and hate spread so much faster and get out of control than it would otherwise. That's an example where I think free speech has to be moderated and it can apply to certain similar situations.

What if Jim Jones could have got on Facebook and told people around the world to drink the Kool aid. 

For covid there are possibilities, ideas, half truths, exaggerations and out right lies.  Yes it is hard to define which is which but not impossible - most things should be left alone but outright lies by powerful and influential people should at least have a warning sign. 

These are just examples where some moderation may be appropriate if lives are at stake. 

I doubt anyone goes out and massacres anyone just because of what they read on a media platform.

There is usually some preexisting hatred that may be amplified by the media, but that doesn't mean the media created it.

[StreetCowboy]

1 hour ago, canthai55 said:

Stopping the publication is a Ban on Free Speech.

I may not agree with you, but I will stand up for your right to say it.

This goes for any subject - and I mean ANY

You can not draw lines - you either have Free Speech - or you don't

 

Stopping publication is different from not publishing.
You can repeat your nonsense anyway you want.  I don't need to repeat it.  When I repeat your slanders, I am guilty of slander.  

[canthai55]

54 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Facebook in Myanmar let free speech reign. Not for ethical reasons but because they didn't want the cost of moderation. Chatter started about the Rohingya and that they were responsible for this and that. As usual there is a tiny bit of truth but then constant lies and exaggerations led to a full blown massacre, and those that could, had to flee to the neighboring country. That's despite them having a history in the country for 100's of years. It is widely accepted that facebook added to it by letting lies, fear, and hate spread so much faster and get out of control than it would otherwise. That's an example where I think free speech has to be moderated and it can apply to certain similar situations.

What if Jim Jones could have got on Facebook and told people around the world to drink the Kool aid. 

For covid there are possibilities, ideas, half truths, exaggerations and out right lies.  Yes it is hard to define which is which but not impossible - most things should be left alone but outright lies by powerful and influential people should at least have a warning sign. 

These are just examples where some moderation may be appropriate if lives are at stake. 

And who makes the decision to "Moderate" ?

The Gov't ? The Media ?

[canthai55]

20 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

Stopping publication is different from not publishing.
You can repeat your nonsense anyway you want.  I don't need to repeat it.  When I repeat your slanders, I am guilty of slander.  

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” ― United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Edited August 22, 2021 by canthai55