Major Censorship Incident

[TomasM]

Excellent post. A couple of three points to consider:

1. It’s only censorship, in the legal sense of the word, if the government enacts it. Other parties, on private platforms of whatever kind may do as they wish. Which includes saying no, if and when the government asks.
2. Does anyone regret—and if so, who?—the 1987 overturn of the 1949 Fairness Doctrine? Inasmuch as I am old enough to have seen and experienced it, and then the after, I think this a shit-show, full stop.
3. Continuation of the status quo, with its attendant lucrative rewards, somewhat explains the culture war battle against the teaching of critical thinking in schools.

Cheers,
Ian

There is all kinds of grey area related to this. Section 230, gives protection to those that provide services for hosting content. It prevents these large companies from being sued for liability if one of their patrons does something illegal. This protection, removes them from the need to censor information UNLESS a judge has ordered the removal - yet, companies have been permitted to self regulate / moderate. Now, this isn't entirely bad until they start regulating in favor of their own self interest. When content creators are getting shadow bans and subscribers aren't getting notified, while YouTube creates large volumes of AI generated content that is being pushed to the forefront (of searches and feeds) we start to see how anti-trust violations could be filed for anti-competitive behavior.

Yes, the government can make demands for their own free speech but it should also be fighting for the rights of all American voices to be heard rather than suppressed. Censorship is generally associated with the freedom of the press and since the printing presses are becoming unused antiques these liberties need to be extended to those communicating on electronic platforms. Bureaucratic agencies should not have a role in this effort and that appears to be changing since the Supreme Court is trying to force Congress to own it's lawmaking rather than delegating it through obscure legislation and delegation. The Constitution is very clear about who can create laws and there is no mention of it delegating through bureaucracies.

If I had to make a prediction, I suspect we will eventually see a non-centralized Internet where information can't be controlled by anyone other than the creator of that information. It's already moving in that direction and the only threat to it is AI. Still, if the government believes it can't control speech, it could very well use that as the premise for unleashing AI on everyone so that we can, "all be safe." Funny that they keep trying to make us "safe", yet all of us appear to feel more unsafe based on the decisions made by government.

@aeon - None of this post was directed at you, I only quoted because the information was related to what I was going to say.

 

[aeon]

Now, this isn't entirely bad until they start regulating in favor of their own self interest.

Which is their right, of course, as a private entity, under the law.

Yes, the government can make demands for their own free speech but it should also be fighting for the rights of all American voices to be heard rather than suppressed.

I vehemently disagree. The government shall not censor, but neither should it have interest in promoting any given voice. It protects the right for every voice to speak, yet not to be heard.

Censorship is generally associated with the freedom of the press and since the printing presses are becoming unused antiques these liberties need to be extended to those communicating on electronic platforms.

Which they are, inasmuch as the government does not censor content, desire to smash TikTok notwithstanding.

If I had to make a prediction, I suspect we will eventually see a non-centralized Internet where information can't be controlled by anyone other than the creator of that information.

That’s what we have now, and that has been true since ARPANET.

Funny that they keep trying to make us "safe", yet all of us appear to feel more unsafe based on the decisions made by government.

I have not felt more unsafe because in truth, no one in a position of power cares about me beyond my ability to provide a modicum of wealth to be siphoned, and my active participation in the consumer economy.

@aeon - None of this post was directed at you, I only quoted because the information was related to what I was going to say.

Understood, and your civility and respect was certainly noted.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[TomasM]

Which is their right, of course, as a private entity, under the law.

Again, a grey area, and that's why I stated it as such. Let's take YouTube as an example. Their original slogan was, "Broadcast Yourself," and their service was created as a way for their customers to communicate with the world. They later extended those partnerships by offering revenue in exchange for created content. So, people built giant channels with a tremendous amount of content, so much that livelihoods rely on the success of their creations and communications.

Now, if YT decides to ban someone or restrict their ability to communicate that affects their livelihood and goes against the very thing they stated when the company was created - some people might call that fraud, others anti-trust. What I'm saying is that this, "under the law," that you mention is only considering the portion of the law that considers them as a "private entity," and ignores the other laws that are infringing on other people.

When I mentioned section 230 I was demonstrating why YT has no reason to censor or shadow ban. There is no reason for it, yet they are still doing it and though I can't prove they are creating the AI content, I can't imagine how so much of it could enter the platform without the knowledge or consent of YT.

If they start phasing people out with algorithms for their own self interest then this is anti-competitive behavior and against the free market system that is protected by law.

If we are going to consider the law, we have to be willing to look at all of the laws.

I vehemently disagree. The government shall not censor, but neither should it have interest in promoting any given voice. It protects the right for every voice to speak, yet not to be heard.

Perhaps I phrased this incorrectly. Every person should have the right not to be unheard. Yes, this is a double-negative and that's probably why I say "heard." To provide an example, in the year 1900 if someone didn't like what was being communicated by a printing press they weren't allowed to burn down the building and the press because it would obviously be arson but also because it would be a major federal violation by preventing the right to free speech.

Now, let's turn to today where the majority of the internet communication goes through a small number of companies. The ability to communicate freely should be equal for all parties involved (that's a free market), and preventing someone from communicating (shadow bans, censorship, and other algorithms) is a method being used to prevent people from having equal access to the press.

To drive this point home, if YT wants to control who can communicate based on YT's best interest then they need to lose their rights of protection afforded by Section 230. If they are going to operate as an open platform with 230 protection then they need to remove the restrictions AND not engage in anti-competitive behavior.

If they continue to censor then there will eventually be a group of politicians that remove their 230 protection and that will destroy their business. They can't have it both ways when it impacts so many people.

Which they are, inasmuch as the government does not censor content, desire to smash TikTok notwithstanding.

According to Zuckerberg, this is incorrect. He specifically stated that the office of the President told Facebook to censor communication associated with his son's laptop and other politically motivated communication. Of course, I don't believe that Zuck innocent in this behavior - he stands to benefit, but that's a different and long conversation.

That’s what we have now, and that has been true since ARPANET.

It's not what we have now. The majority of the communication on the internet goes through a relatively small number of companies. Either you use their datacenter, platform(s), or both in some way. Even with companies like FB, and YT, that are spread out across the globe, they have centralized control.

This was further restricted and controlled with the implementation of the Net Neutrality laws that gave favoritism to larger organizations.

I have not felt more unsafe because in truth, no one in a position of power cares about me beyond my ability to provide a modicum of wealth to be siphoned, and my active participation in the consumer economy.

Yet. Try stepping outside of your own perspective. Look around and hear what other people are saying.

If you feel safe or don't feel unsafe based on what is happening all around us over the last few years then you are in a small minority. Still, I'm happy that you have that luxury.

I've spoken with people from every financial class, poor to super rich, and I've heard all of them tell me how there is a complete lack of trust for the power structures in most all of the western world. This lack of trust isn't coming from words or rhetoric, it stems from their actions by means of financial, industrial, and political power.

 

[aeon]

Again, a grey area, and that's why I stated it as such. Let's take YouTube as an example. Their original slogan was, "Broadcast Yourself," and their service was created as a way for their customers to communicate with the world. They later extended those partnerships by offering revenue in exchange for created content. So, people built giant channels with a tremendous amount of content, so much that livelihoods rely on the success of their creations and communications.

Now, if YT decides to ban someone or restrict their ability to communicate that affects their livelihood and goes against the very thing they stated when the company was created - some people might call that fraud, others anti-trust. What I'm saying is that this, "under the law," that you mention is only considering the portion of the law that considers them as a "private entity," and ignores the other laws that are infringing on other people.

Again, that is YouTube’s right. They are not a common carrier, and furthermore, Citizens United guarantees the right of personhood. No one can be coerced, or forced, to associate and engage, and any party always reserves the right to walk away from a voluntary partnership.

YouTube cannot infringe in the sense of censorship, under the law. They can allow, or not, of their own choosing—just like you and I.

When I mentioned section 230 I was demonstrating why YT has no reason to censor or shadow ban.

Nor do they need one. They do not have to justify or explain. They have agency, and autonomy to act—just like you and I. Regardless, they cannot censor. That is not within their power, given what YT is.

If they start phasing people out with algorithms for their own self interest then this is anti-competitive behavior and against the free market system that is protected by law.

They are not preventing someone else from doing so. They may decide what users to keep, or not. There’s nothing anti-competitive about that whatsoever.

If we are going to consider the law, we have to be willing to look at all of the laws.

Indeed, and in this, non-common carrier status, private enterprise, and Citizens United loom large.

To provide an example, in the year 1900 if someone didn't like what was being communicated by a printing press they weren't allowed to burn down the building and the press because it would obviously be arson but also because it would be a major federal violation by preventing the right to free speech.

Yet, at the same time, consider—neither the government, or other entity, could decide what that printer would print, or not. If the owner didn’t like a given submission, they could choose to not print it/refuse it.

The ability to communicate freely should be equal for all parties involved (that's a free market), and preventing someone from communicating (shadow bans, censorship, and other algorithms) is a method being used to prevent people from having equal access to the press.

Which is the company’s right. It is not a public resource. No one has any right to a private press other than its legal owner.

To drive this point home, if YT wants to control who can communicate based on YT's best interest then they need to lose their rights of protection afforded by Section 230. If they are going to operate as an open platform with 230 protection then they need to remove the restrictions AND not engage in anti-competitive inbehavior.

In this, I am in full agreement. If the protections of 230 stand, then the status of the platform must be that of a common carrier, as it was with telephone networks in the 20th Century.

If they continue to censor then there will eventually be a group of politicians that remove their 230 protection and that will destroy their business. They can't have it both ways when it impacts so many people.

I will say it once again. Those companies do not have the power to censor, and they never have.

According to Zuckerberg, this is incorrect. He specifically stated that the office of the President told Facebook to censor communication associated with his son's laptop and other politically motivated communication. Of course, I don't believe that Zuck innocent in this behavior - he stands to benefit, but that's a different and long conversation.

So the government told, which is of no legal standing. Also, if Facebook was to act, that would be their choice, and if they did so, that would not be censorship.

It's not what we have now. The majority of the communication on the internet goes through a relatively small number of companies.

Majority, but not all. TCP/IP protocol is, by its very nature, decentralized. You do not have to use their networks, or data centers.

Try stepping outside of your own perspective. Look around and hear what other people are saying.

If you feel safe or don't feel unsafe based on what is happening all around us over the last few years then you are in a small minority. Still, I'm happy that you have that luxury.

I don’t feel safe. I never have. I was sexually abused and drugged every weekday from age three-and-a-half until age five.

I cannot feel less safe or more unsafe. I live at rock bottom in terms of thinking the world a safe place. Events happen, and I feel for others, and their fear, but my sense of things does not change.

So there is no luxury, even if I do make a real effort to find joy in the world, and the people and things in it.

I've spoken with people from every financial class, poor to super rich, and I've heard all of them tell me how there is a complete lack of trust for the power structures in most all of the western world. This lack of trust isn't coming from words or rhetoric, it stems from their actions by means of financial, industrial, and political power.

Indeed, and issues of agency, control, coercion, consent, inequity, force, mutuality, dominion, boundary, and so on, color all my thoughts.

Somewhat related to thoughts in this regard:

https://www.infjs.com/threads/omnia-vincit-amor.31889/post-911862

Best to You,
Ian

 

[TomasM]

Again, that is YouTube’s right. They are not a common carrier, and furthermore, Citizens United guarantees the right of personhood. No one can be coerced, or forced, to associate and engage, and any party always reserves the right to walk away from a voluntary partnership.

YouTube cannot infringe in the sense of censorship, under the law. They can allow, or not, of their own choosing—just like you and I.

Nor do they need one. They do not have to justify or explain. They have agency, and autonomy to act—just like you and I. Regardless, they cannot censor. That is not within their power, given what YT is.

They are not preventing someone else from doing so. They may decide what users to keep, or not. There’s nothing anti-competitive about that whatsoever.

Indeed, and in this, non-common carrier status, private enterprise, and Citizens United loom large.

Yet, at the same time, consider—neither the government, or other entity, could decide what that printer would print, or not. If the owner didn’t like a given submission, they could choose to not print it/refuse it.

Which is the company’s right. It is not a public resource. No one has any right to a private press other than its legal owner.

In this, I am in full agreement. If the protections of 230 stand, then the status of the platform must be that of a common carrier, as it was with telephone networks in the 20th Century.

I will say it once again. Those companies do not have the power to censor, and they never have.

So the government told, which is of no legal standing. Also, if Facebook was to act, that would be their choice, and if they did so, that would not be censorship.

Majority, but not all. TCP/IP protocol is, by its very nature, decentralized. You do not have to use their networks, or data centers.

I don’t feel safe. I never have. I was sexually abused and drugged every weekday from age three-and-a-half until age five.

I cannot feel less safe or more unsafe. I live at rock bottom in terms of thinking the world a safe place. Events happen, and I feel for others, and their fear, but my sense of things does not change.

So there is no luxury, even if I do make a real effort to find joy in the world, and the people and things in it.

Indeed, and issues of agency, control, coercion, consent, inequity, force, mutuality, dominion, boundary, and so on, color all my thoughts.

Somewhat related to thoughts in this regard:

https://www.infjs.com/threads/omnia-vincit-amor.31889/post-911862

Best to You,
Ian

I could go on about all of this and demonstrate what they are doing from a business, communication, and legal standpoint but I get the feeling that I'm just wasting my breath and that you are comfortable with the way YT and other social media companies operate.

I've worked in those spaces and I know exactly how they operate. There is censorship occurring on those platforms and it is a well known fact - some people are allowed to communicate and others are not, because YT doesn't agree with their ideas or opinions. It's also happened on FB and it was happening on Twitter (still is only in a different way.)

So, instead of trying to convince you of what is happening, I'll tell you why it is happening. Censorship has nothing to do with legality or the law, it's about being above the law. It's about power and how that power gets what it wants.

Big tech is on the verge of completely dominating every aspect of this world through AI. The politicians know this and they are using their political power to control these whales. By forcing them to be involved in this censorship they have some control over them (this is the old way of thinking about how to control people.) The reason politicians can do this is because they control the law and are above it. Right now, the financial companies collectively own industry and the politicians; however, this will change if AI is allowed out of its Pandora's box. There are different kinds of power but all of them yield to real power. Real power comes from the military, AI, even the creation of energy. The world of finance has controlled real power through opportunity and the threat of being ostracized. If AI is allowed to emerge, it (and its master) will not care about finance or being ostracized because it will be able to do whatever it pleases. Censorship is Big Tech, greasing the wheels of the political sphere so that they can get over the AI finish line, but don't believe for a second that they don't realize what is happening or that they will forget who did what.

One last thing:

Nor do they need one. They do not have to justify or explain. They have agency, and autonomy to act—just like you and I. Regardless, they cannot censor. That is not within their power, given what YT is.

They do have to justify and explain their behavior because they are a publicly traded company. They are held accountable by the stockholders and the publics best interest. If you want to know who owns them, just go look at who owns the majority shares and who is on their board of directors. I'll get you started with the majority shareholders - that should tell you something. If you want to know why censorship is happening then all you have to do is follow the money. I already know why, but I know you have to find the answer on your own or you won't accept it as truth. Of course, none of this will matter after AI is out of the box.




There's a reason Vanguard owns 1% more than Zuckerberg.

BTW, sorry about your childhood - mine wasn't like that but it was hard so I completely understand and extend my empathy.

 

[aeon]

I could go on about all of this and demonstrate what they are doing from a business, communication, and legal standpoint but I get the feeling that I'm just wasting my breath and that you are comfortable with the way YT and other social media companies operate.

Well, it would be more than okay if you simply asked. I don’t like it, not at all.

There is censorship occurring on those platforms and it is a well known fact - some people are allowed to communicate and others are not, because YT doesn't agree with their ideas or opinions.

And this is done by the government, or under threat of force by the government?

If not, do you think a publisher has the right to choose what to publish?

For example, YouTube does not allow videos of sexual activity. Do you think this unjust?

Clearly, we have a different understanding and use of the word censorship. I limit it to First Amendment violations by the government, whereas your use is not limited in this way.

I largely agree with your thoughts on AI and what is to come. That said, I tend not to worry about those things I cannot control. Yes, there will be great suffering.

They do have to justify and explain their behavior because they are a publicly traded company. They are held accountable by the stockholders and the publics best interest.

That’s not true of most publicly traded companies. Accountability is to shareholders, and their interest is capital gains. The public’s interest only matters to the degree it furthers those gains.

So are social media companies refusing to publish content they don’t like or is contrary to their interests? Sure, of course they are. Wealth always concentrates and gathers power in service of further acquisitions.

The details have changed. The game is the same.

Given the normative human animal, I know it to be a foolish endeavor to expect otherwise. There’s no surprise in this. But I’m admittedly jaded.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[TomasM]

So are social media companies refusing to publish content they don’t like or is contrary to their interests? Sure, of course they are. Wealth always concentrates and gathers power in service of further acquisitions.

So we agree there is censorship, but do we agree on the origin of that censorship?

Accountability is to shareholders, and their interest is capital gains.

There are shareholders and then there are "shareholders." Money is not their interest and therefore capital gains is simply a cost of doing business (margin at most). The why, what, and how are explained on public calls where anyone can hear. The real discussions occur behind closed doors with your board members. Board members are selected by those that have the majority interest in a company.

This is about power, not money. Accountability, explaining, and justification are done by those that don't have power. Having to explain is just part of the games rules so that others can be controlled by those rules.

And this is done by the government, or under threat of force by the government?

If not, do you think a publisher has the right to choose what to publish?

For example, YouTube does not allow videos of sexual activity. Do you think this unjust?

Clearly, we have a different understanding and use of the word censorship. I limit it to First Amendment violations by the government, whereas your use is not limited in this way.

The government doesn't openly make threats. The do however use power to influence the decisions by others.

Yes a publisher has the right to choose but YT and FB are protected by S230 and should not be able to control people and be protected from liability. If they are getting protection then they have no reason to control. If then are not getting protection then they have a reason to control. Controlling people through duress while being protected from the outcomes is both morally and ethically wrong. It should also be legally wrong and I think we are getting near that outcome.

Sexual videos are bound by laws. I haven't really explored those laws so I can't really speak to the efficacy pertaining to its introduction. Personally, I believe that children who have been exposed to various types of sexual stimulation at a young age are harmed - so, I'm against it being open and freely available. There is a difference between breaking a law (porn to kids) and censorship (which I believe to be wrong under the circumstances).

I'm too tired to talk about censorship, especially when it means a full explanation about the Constitution. With that, I will say that censorship, today, has extended itself to impact large groups of people and is not necessarily achieved directly by the government, but instead by various third parties who are interconnected. Still, it has been proven that it is used as a method to control and influence directly by the federal government (most recently, Biden, according to Zuckerberg).

 

[philostam]

Thank you for your thoughts, @TomasM. I really enjoyed reading them and it shows you have experience and know your stuff.
Nothing more to add, cheers.

 

[TomasM]

I’m not a big fan of FN or FB but here is another example of FB Censorship. It’s still happening. When a fact checker is merely asking a political group to provide “truth,” we know that there is a problem. Politicians and truth go together like oil and water. They’re all addicted to lying and I honestly believe they enjoy it. This is not reserved to one party; however, one party has benefited significantly more from the censorship than the other and that concerns me.

Again, follow the money and you will find your answers.

 

[Wyote]

Clearly, we have a different understanding and use of the word censorship.

Just a side note here.
I think problems arise in these types of conversations largely because of the nuanced (mis)understandings of what censorship is and how it ought to be (ethically) applied.

Good fucking luck trying to be fair and balanced

 

[John K]

I don't think it's necessarily about *what* is getting censored or for what reason as much as it is the massive amount of it that has been happening under our noses with little acknowledgement. There's this idea that we are free in the United States and have freedom of not only speech but access to information, but it's clear that we don't. Just because it's not the government limiting our information doesn't make our country any different than one that is being controlled by a government and censored.

It's always about power in the broadest sense of the concept. In a very restricted society power lies wholly with the state until such time that the exercise of that power becomes intolerable to the people and there is a revolution. In so-called free societies, the power is up for grabs and it gets grabbed by a variety of different people. Power lies very much in the control of information, the control of agenda, and above all in the way these are presented to ordinary people.

I learnt long ago that power is not simply the force of compulsion from the top. There are many other sorts of power as strong, or even stronger. In modern states for example, administrative power is profound - this is the sort of power I had for many years in my job without being a senior manager. It comes with an understanding of the mechanisms of an organisation and how to make it work, and lies at the heart of the civil service in most countries - without which the political leaders would be helpless because they are rarely around for long enough to grasp its intricacies.

But another power is that of influence, and this is at the heart of the issue you are raising. When this sort of power is used with virtuosity it leads to the suppression of contrary viewpoints, those that would erode its power. It doesn't need despotic direct power because it gets all it desires by farming opinion in its favour, cancelling the opposition, reducing the opposition's footprint in public life, engineering the withdrawal of funding from the opposition - from fear.

We live in an era when, to be frank, those who hold political power do not have the competence to wield it well - they are idiots in this regard and are saved only by the innate authority of their office, and the administrative power abilities of their civil servants. It's those who hold the power of influence who are the Adepts - they are our real hidden rulers. They don't need to censor what we see and read, because that happens automatically along the fault lines of their desires. They are the ones who determine what vast numbers of us think and feel.