But if you encourage something that in the future could help Side A suppress Side B then you may indeed be making things even worse. If Parler became the social-media platform of choice, became as ubiquitous as Twitter, then decided to prohibit posts by those denigrating Trump, what's to stop them?
You do the best you can, and adjust as needed. Sort of like following a recipe. Only a nut would insist on sticking to the letter of the recipe when it's clearly going to result in a burnt-up dinner and a smoked-out kitchen.
But if you encourage something that in the future could help Side A suppress Side B then you may indeed be making things even worse. If Parler became the social-media platform of choice, became as ubiquitous as Twitter, then decided to prohibit posts by those denigrating Trump, what's to stop them?
Nobody said it was an easy problem. (An exaggeration, I’m sure.) But that’s no reason to think that there can’t be anything to do to improve the situation.
But if you encourage something that in the future could help Side A suppress Side B then you may indeed be making things even worse. If Parler became the social-media platform of choice, became as ubiquitous as Twitter, then decided to prohibit posts by those denigrating Trump, what's to stop them?
If fascism has won, as in the scenario you describe, then we all have bigger fish to fry than worrying about being banned from a social media outlet.
I listened to "A Point of View" on BBC Radio 4 this morning.
The speaker today was John Gray...
I had a listen too. In my view Gray's point is that social media is the modern public square. Public discourse, now held (for better or very much the worse) on social media is part of what binds us as a society. Preventing views that are widely held from being heard in the square is therefore dangerous because it atomises society.
I think Gray's point is that our collective ability to air or views, be they good or bad, is a safety valve. Without it, groups holding divergent views would opt out of the political process and choose violence instead.
You said Trump was banned for telling lies (fwiw I would also go with incitement to violence). But that assumes that free speech is only an individual right, a view that Gray challenges:
Free speech is commonly seen as a matter of individual rights. But it can be a vital element in preserving peace: a condition of modus vivendi in society in which sections of the population with divergent beliefs and values can live side by side. It's this that has been put at risk by the bans of the tech titans.
I think this is particularly so re Trump because, odious as he is, he was at the time the elected president of the US and one whose voice had to be heard for good or bad for that reason. I think that's the reason why social media delayed so long. Trump wasn't just inciting violence, but was was also about to be replaced as president. Many people have been banned by social media for a good deal less than Trump.
I would add that I think Gray is wrong. Encouraging armed goons into the public square (of which I would think the Capitol is part) is the real attack on public discourse here.
But that assumes that free speech is only an individual right, a view that Gray challenges:
Free speech is commonly seen as a matter of individual rights. But it can be a vital element in preserving peace: a condition of modus vivendi in society in which sections of the population with divergent beliefs and values can live side by side. It's this that has been put at risk by the bans of the tech titans.
I feel the criticism of the tech titans here is somewhat belated. That sections of the population have divergent beliefs and values that aren't compromised by an accurate awareness of those with which they live side by side is a situation exacerbated by the tech giants.
Trump's followers had plenty of free speech and resorted to violence anyway. All that free speech enabled them to find others of like mind, and brainwash people in the middle, and whip them up into a murderous mob. It wasn't lack of free speech that made this violence. It was if anything a surfeit of it.
If Twitter and Facebook and other platforms, in order to better serve their shareholders, decide to ban criticism of shareholder capitalism, is that OK ?
Behind all the double standards - the people who approve censorship of views they're opposed to but protest the censorship of views they agree with - there are real difficult issues here. About what should be the limits of acceptable speech, and the rights and responsibilities of near-monopoly private-sector providers of communications infrastructure with the power to censor.
If Twitter and Facebook and other platforms, in order to better serve their shareholders, decide to ban criticism of shareholder capitalism, is that OK ?
Fine by me. I mean I think they'd be daft, commercially, but I don't see how I can make them give server space to my pinko ramblings.
If Twitter and Facebook and other platforms, in order to better serve their shareholders, decide to ban criticism of shareholder capitalism, is that OK ?
Behind all the double standards - the people who approve censorship of views they're opposed to but protest the censorship of views they agree with - there are real difficult issues here. About what should be the limits of acceptable speech, and the rights and responsibilities of near-monopoly private-sector providers of communications infrastructure with the power to censor.
Please. Inciting violence and racial hatred isn't "views they're opposed to" it's speech that would get you arrested in any civilised country.
If Twitter and Facebook and other platforms, in order to better serve their shareholders, decide to ban criticism of shareholder capitalism, is that OK ?
Behind all the double standards - the people who approve censorship of views they're opposed to but protest the censorship of views they agree with - there are real difficult issues here. About what should be the limits of acceptable speech, and the rights and responsibilities of near-monopoly private-sector providers of communications infrastructure with the power to censor.
Please. Inciting violence and racial hatred isn't "views they're opposed to" it's speech that would get you arrested in any civilised country.
And this is partly why Russ' question is so disingenuous.
Thing is most people do actually have a line where they think these platforms should have a cut off. It's just where the line's drawn. It doesn't seem unreasonable that powerful public figures repeatedly posting lies might be over that line. Calling for violence against a racial group. Seems a reasonable decision not to give that space. Some lines would be silly to draw, but it also seems to infringe rather on the platforms' own freedom of expression to tell them they cannot draw lines. If we are concerned that they have monopolies I think it's that we might want to address.
Comments
If fascism has won, as in the scenario you describe, then we all have bigger fish to fry than worrying about being banned from a social media outlet.
I had a listen too. In my view Gray's point is that social media is the modern public square. Public discourse, now held (for better or very much the worse) on social media is part of what binds us as a society. Preventing views that are widely held from being heard in the square is therefore dangerous because it atomises society.
I think Gray's point is that our collective ability to air or views, be they good or bad, is a safety valve. Without it, groups holding divergent views would opt out of the political process and choose violence instead.
You said Trump was banned for telling lies (fwiw I would also go with incitement to violence). But that assumes that free speech is only an individual right, a view that Gray challenges:
I think this is particularly so re Trump because, odious as he is, he was at the time the elected president of the US and one whose voice had to be heard for good or bad for that reason. I think that's the reason why social media delayed so long. Trump wasn't just inciting violence, but was was also about to be replaced as president. Many people have been banned by social media for a good deal less than Trump.
Hee hee hee.
"It's only a coup if it comes from the Coup D'état region of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling white nationalism.”
"Prosecutors: stand back and stand by"
Behind all the double standards - the people who approve censorship of views they're opposed to but protest the censorship of views they agree with - there are real difficult issues here. About what should be the limits of acceptable speech, and the rights and responsibilities of near-monopoly private-sector providers of communications infrastructure with the power to censor.
Fine by me. I mean I think they'd be daft, commercially, but I don't see how I can make them give server space to my pinko ramblings.
Please. Inciting violence and racial hatred isn't "views they're opposed to" it's speech that would get you arrested in any civilised country.
And this is partly why Russ' question is so disingenuous.
Thing is most people do actually have a line where they think these platforms should have a cut off. It's just where the line's drawn. It doesn't seem unreasonable that powerful public figures repeatedly posting lies might be over that line. Calling for violence against a racial group. Seems a reasonable decision not to give that space. Some lines would be silly to draw, but it also seems to infringe rather on the platforms' own freedom of expression to tell them they cannot draw lines. If we are concerned that they have monopolies I think it's that we might want to address.