Yes, and yes. I am against all censorship outside of the decisions made by parents of their own children.
Usually this is because someone has to decide that someone else is misleading or obfuscating, and that person is always subject to bias.
YouTube bans Alex Jones
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Yes, and yes. I am against all censorship outside of the decisions made by parents of their own children.
Usually this is because someone has to decide that someone else is misleading or obfuscating, and that person is always subject to bias.
There are definitely objective truths out there. A world without any censorship would be a troubling one. We are in the face of it today where "alternative facts" can exist.
Clearly there is a balance and I believe no one reasonable would think that banning Alex Jones is a bad idea.
Did you read the article about Kushner censoring articles that were critical of his friends at the Observer (a newspaper he owned)? Is that okay in your eyes? What about Foxnews and their biases? That is a form of censorship, when they don't give equal time to liberals.
Sure, but that's not what our discussion was about. It was about whether FB, YouTube and Apple are targeting people because they don't follow their agenda. But I agree. They're private companies, and they should be able to do whatever they want.
I did not read the article about Kushner, but I don't need to. Censorship shouldn't be done, period (except by parents as mentioned above). The moment you begin down that path is the moment that the process becomes flawed and prone to bias.
Whether or not there are objective truths is irrelevant.
Farrakhan is not posting these videos on these platforms, he has no official channel, he is not making money off these and he is not targeting specific people with conspiracies (see Sandy Hook) that endangers their lives. Enough with the false equivalence.
Even KKK ralliers have to get a permit to congregate publicly. Do you think some skin head wouldn't be forcefully removed from a hospital or a mall if he started spouting his vile?
Alex Jones instigated harassment of Sandy Hook parents, him or his lemmings posted their address and personal info for such purpose.
This is a case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
If FB, YT and Apple had an agenda, they would have banned Alex Jones years ago - private companies have a policy and one of them being not liable for the content which is very hard to do when you call for the assassination of Robert Mueller on those platforms.
https://boingboing.net/2018/07/24/alex-jones-claims-robert-muell.html
If anyone went into a public place and began disturbing the peace, there are laws that would require the police to interject themselves. But that's not what they're talking about here. That's not what censorship is. Censorship, to use your analogy, would be if you had hundreds of conversations at the mall, and one of them was talking about a subject most people found despicable, but not in a manner more disrupting than anyone else, yet suddenly that person was silenced. That is a problem, and I am sorry you don't see it, since you are supposed to be a liberal - one who stands up for the freedoms of others.
I'm a moderate and a staunch capitalist who knows the difference between public and private sectors. But if you want to nationalize social media, yeah we can talk about the applicability of censorship.
So if Verizon suddenly decided to cut off all internet access to people of a certain color, or gender, or political affiliation, you'd be ok because they're a private company?